In a 1,000-1,250-word paper, consider the outcome and process meas

In a 1,000-1,250-word paper, consider the outcome and process
measures that can be used for CQI. Include the following in
your essay:
At least two process measures that can be used for CQI.
At least one outcome measure that can be used for CQI.
A description of why each measure was chosen.
An explanation of how data would be collected for each (how
each will be measured).
An explanation of how success would be determined.
One or two data-driven, cost-effective solutions to this
challenge.
Use a minimum of three peer-reviewed scholarly references as
evidence.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the
APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to
beginning the assignment to become familiar with the
expectations for successful completion.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A
link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in
Class Resources if you need assistance
Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice
Volume 14 | Issue 2 Article 3

2017
Developing Scholarly Identity: Variation in
Agentive Responses to Supervisor Feedback
Kelsey S. Inouye
University of Oxford, [email protected]
Lynn McAlpine
[email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp
Research Online is the open access institutional repository for
the University of Wollongong. For further information contact
the UOW Library:
[email protected]
Recommended Citation
Inouye, Kelsey S. and McAlpine, Lynn, Developing Scholarly
Identity: Variation in Agentive
Responses to Supervisor Feedback, Journal of University
Teaching & Learning Practice, 14(2), 2017.
Available at:http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol14/iss2/3
Developing Scholarly Identity: Variation in Agentive Responses
to
Supervisor Feedback
Abstract
The central task for doctoral students, through the process of
writing, feedback and revision, is to create a
thesis that establishes their scholarly identity by situating
themselves and their contribution within a field.
This longitudinal study of two first-year doctoral students
investigated the relationship between response to
supervisor feedback on the thesis proposal and the development
of scholarly identity (self-confidence,

independence in research thinking, positioning the self in
relation to others), through the lens of individual
agency (self-assessing work, seeking and critically engaging
with others’ feedback in order to clarify research
thinking). Data consisted of semi-structured interviews
conducted over 3 months, different drafts of the
research proposal, and written supervisor comments on the
drafts. Narrative analysis and open coding were
used to produce in-depth portraits of the individual experiences
and perceptions of each participant. There
were differences between the two individuals in their growing
scholarly identities as regards their agency. The
degree of agency exhibited in engaging critically with feedback
in relation to self-assessment, and clarifying
research thinking appeared linked to the development of the
student’s scholarly identity: her sense of
confidence, scholarly independence in thinking, and positioning
in relation to others. Such confidence and
ownership in turn inspired greater agency. Interestingly,
differences in the extent to which participants were
agentive in relation to feedback appeared influenced by
previous experiences with feedback. These results
contribute a richer understanding of the relationship between
use of supervisor feedback and growing
scholarly independence.
Keywords
scholarly identity, supervision, doctoral education, doctoral
writing, feedback, agency
This journal article is available in Journal of University
Teaching & Learning Practice:
http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol14/iss2/3

Introduction
As aspiring scholars, doctoral students endeavour to enter the
academic community by developing
their research and writing abilities through completion of a
thesis (Aitchison et al. 2010; Kamler &
Thompson 2014). Composing the thesis, a process that involves
writing, research, feedback and
revision, allows students to learn to situate themselves as
scholars (Wegener et al. 2014) and
establish scholarly identity – a sense of independence as a
researcher (Pearson & Brew 2002)
located within a discipline and contributing to the body of
literature.
However, given the intensity of doctoral work and the difficulty
of transitioning from student to
independent researcher, scholarly writing is often marked by an
increase in anxiety in graduate
students, who are just beginning to navigate both the disciplines
and the institutions in which they
are embedded (Lee & Boud 2003). Although many doctoral
students have conducted research as
master’s students, the doctoral thesis is the first time they are
asked to do research at such an in-

depth and substantial level, making the doctoral thesis a novel
learning task in many ways.
In writing the thesis, supervisor feedback is considered
essential to making adequate and timely
progress, and in encouraging scholarly growth (Kamler &
Thomson 2014; Murakami-Ramalho et
al. 2011). Yet, while previous studies have investigated the
communication and reception of
supervisor feedback, and what types of feedback students find
useful, few studies have addressed
how supervisor feedback is related to the development of
scholarly identity, particularly early on
in doctoral work. Thus, this study focuses on transfer of status
or upgrade, which is the first step
towards completing the thesis in most UK doctoral programs.
Transfer of status is similar to the
proposal defence in North America, except that the supervisor is
not involved in the assessment
process. Students typically are expected to apply for transfer of
status after the first year of
doctoral work, and must receive a successful evaluation to
proceed to doctoral candidature.1
Because supervisor feedback has the formative possibility to

help clarify the doctoral student’s
initial research ideas in revisions of the transfer paper, the
purpose of this study was to explore the
relationship between variations in engagement to supervisor
feedback on transfer-related writing
and the development of scholarly identity. We chose to do this
by examining identity development
through the framework of identity-trajectory, with a focus on
individuals’ sense of agency
(McAlpine, Amundsen & Turner 2013).
Agency and identity-trajectory
Identity-trajectory approaches identity development through the
lens of variation in agency as
regards engagement in academic work (McAlpine, Amundsen &
Turner 2013). Agency represents
efforts to work towards personally chosen goals, and deal with
challenges. In relation to writing
and supervisor feedback, agentive behaviours include self-
assessing work, engaging critically with
feedback to clarify research thinking and seeking feedback from
various sources. Affect –emotion
– also plays a role in agency, in that it influences both one’s

approach to the world and response to
it, including one’s desire to invest in or avoid certain activities
or relationships. In other words,
individuals vary in the extent to which they perceive themselves
as agentive in different contexts.
In becoming part of the academy, identity-trajectory
understands scholarly identity development
as enacted in three interwoven work strands: intellectual,
networking and institutional (McAlpine,
1 Assessment criteria require the student to demonstrate they
can “construct an argument, can present material in a
scholarly manner, has a viable subject to work on, and can be
reasonably expected to complete it in three to four years”
(University of Oxford 2016, p. 2).
1
Inouye and McAlpine: Developing Scholarly Identity
Amundsen & Turner 2013). The intellectual strand refers to how
the student seeks to contribute to
the body of work in their field through different forms of
communication, including the thesis,
published papers and conference presentations. The networking

strand is composed of the peer and
other academic networks the student builds and draws on for
support (interpersonal networks), as
well as the inter-textual networks – the literature – that the
student engages with and uses to
inform their own research thinking. The institutional strand
focuses on the student’s active
engagement with both institutional obligations, in this case,
completing the thesis proposal within
expected timelines, and institutional resources like supervisors,
libraries and seminars to advance
their goals.
Identity-trajectory also places special emphasis on prior
experience, specifically on how the past
influences present and future intentions. Thus, identity-
trajectory views are not static, but
constantly evolving in response to the individual’s changing
goals and experiences. To understand
how individuals vary in the degrees to which they are agentive
in furthering their sense of
scholarly identity, one must recognise the personal histories and
specific contexts in which the
individual is embedded. In short, students can be more or less

agentive in the networking,
intellectual and institutional strands of their developing
scholarly identity. Figure 1 illustrates the
interconnectedness of the three strands of identity-trajectory
across time.
From the perspective of identity-trajectory, how the student
chooses to engage with supervisor
feedback (an institutional resource) in developing the research
project is a key site of inquiry, as
the development of the doctoral proposal and thesis, which
create the intellectual contribution that
demonstrates a growing scholarly identity, are arguably the
most central institutional responsibility
of doctoral work. . Likewise, whether the student seeks
alternate sources of feedback and what the
2
Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, Vol. 14
[2017], Iss. 2, Art. 3
student chooses to read contribute to both the thesis and the
student’s understanding of their place

within the academy. Thus, the ways students seek out and
critically engage with suggestions, for
instance, demonstrate how students can actively build their
identities in the scholarly community
as they develop confidence and independence in their research
thinking, and position the self in
relation to others. This study then explores in more depth how
the research on writing can be
framed within students’ agentive engagement with the three
strands of identity-trajectory:
intellectual, networking and institutional.
Writing, research thinking, and identity work
Over the past two decades, ample research has recognised the
development of scholarly identity as
a process of becoming located within a discipline and institution
based on one’s research
contribution; this encompasses the activities associated with
being a teacher, researcher, writer,
administrator, etc. (Clarke, Hyde & Drennan 2013; Lieff et al.
2012; Murakami-Ramalho,
Militello & Piert 2013). Evidence of scholarly growth includes
greater confidence in one’s work

and a greater critical perspective (Murakami-Ramalho et al.
2011), the development of one’s
technical vocabulary and interaction with networks within the
chosen field to achieve a sense of
belonging (Lieff et al. 2012) and position oneself in relation to
others, thus adding to the larger
conversation through one’s research (Cameron, Nairn &
Higgins, 2009; Pare 2011). In other
words, prior work suggests that one forum for scholarly growth
lies in writing (Kamler &
Thomson 2014), such as the doctoral thesis.
In other words, through writing, individuals clarify their ideas
about the project as a whole.
Further, since one of the major goals of doctoral study is to
produce independent scholars (Pearson
& Brew 2002), writing can be understood as a process of
becoming independent in the ability to
critique, argue and position oneself in relation to others.
Writing initially involves clarifying
research thinking and generating ideas, and later “integrat[ing]
different parts of their work” when
completing the final draft of the thesis (Phillips 1982, p. 172).
Thus, academic writing involves the

synthesis of a sense of identity and confidence as a w riter
(Ivanic 1998, 2004; Kamler & Thomson
2014; Lea & Stierer 2011), with a focus on putting a particular
stamp on the text (Thomson &
Kamler 2016), thereby positioning the self as a legitimate voice
with a contribution to make
(Cameron et al. 2009). In other words, writing is the tangible
representation of an individual’s
research thinking and identity as a scholar.
Thus, from the perspective of identity-trajectory, the thesis and
related research represent the
student’s potential intellectual contribution, since they are
regarded as principally the work of the
student. The student must be agentive in developing and owning
the research thinking and how it
is represented in the text, and work on the thesis constitutes
development of the intellectual strand
of identity-trajectory.
The role of feedback: Encouraging self-assessment and research
thinking
Agency is evident in the networking strand of identity-

trajectory in the extent to which doctoral
students intentionally develop and use a network of support to
help further their research ideas,
which are then represented in the text. One such source of
support is supervisor feedback, a key
institutional resource and important means of achieving the
student’s institutional responsibility
for timely completion.
3
Feedback is understood as “information provided by an agent
(e.g., teacher, book, parent, self,
experience) regarding aspects of one’s performance or
understanding” (Hattie & Timperley 2007,
p.81). Feedback creates or highlights what the assessor
considers a “gap” between the quality of
student work and the target level defined by the assessor –
which students may mitigate by seeking
out and addressing comments, and by learning to detect issues
in their work through self-
assessment (Hattie & Timperley 2007). Much evidence of this

link exists at the undergraduate
level.
Previous research suggests that self-regulation and self-
assessment are important components of
writing development and performance (Cho, Cho & Hacker
2010), and that teachers may
encourage self-assessment by asking students to evaluate their
work (Nichol 2010). For doctoral
students, there is evidence that peer writing groups may be
useful in encouraging self-assessment
as students learn to position themselves by collectively building
identities as writers and peer
reviewers, and sharing experiences in pursuit of the common
goal of producing quality writing
(Aitchison & Lee 2006; Lee & Boud 2003). This notion of self-
assessment is also central in
understanding the role of agency in research development. The
way students evaluate their work,
interpret and assess supervisor feedback and make appropriate
revisions is representative of the
agentive nature of scholarly growth.
At the doctoral level, much of the research on feedback has

focused on that between the supervisor
and supervisee, because it is under the supervisor’s purview that
the student shapes a thesis.
Specifically, doctoral students’ supervisory needs most
frequently include writing, research plans
and process, institutional issues and disciplinary and academic
practices (McAlpine & McKinnon
2012). Prior work on supervisor feedback has focused primarily
on classifying types of feedback
(Kumar & Stracke 2007; Basturkmen et al. 2014). Such studies
have examined the linguistic
functions of comments (Kumar & Stracke 2007) as well as
trends in the substantive content of
feedback (Basturkmen et al. 2014) and how graduate students
view different types of feedback –
what is perceived as most useful, and what is not (Kumar &
Stracke 2007; Basturkmen et al.
2014). Supervisor feedback may support changes in research
thinking and scholarly development
in doctoral students by introducing the student to new literature,
methodologies or possible
theoretical frameworks (Kwan 2009), and posing reflective
questions that prompt students to
reevaluate their work (Ghazal et al. 2014).

Responses to feedback: Emotion and experience
Because identity-trajectory takes into account the role of prior
experience in shaping present and
future intentions and perspectives, past experiences with writing
play an important part in shaping
how students respond to feedback. In other words, in becoming
a PhD student, individuals bring
with them a long history of experience with feedback on text.
These varied experiences provide
the context in which they respond to feedback in the doctoral
context.
Research suggests that writing the thesis can be an emotional
journey of highs and lows. Feedback
that challenges a doctoral student’s thinking and actions can
lead to negative emotional responses,
which may subsequently affect self-efficacy, particularly in
students with little practice giving and
receiving feedback (Can & Walker 2011; Caffarella & Barnett
2010; Carlino 2012). Part of
moving from student to independent researcher (Aitchison &
Lee 2006; Aitchison et al. 2012) is

learning to value challengi ng feedback as a mechanism to
enhance one’s thinking. In this shift,
giving and receiving feedback comes to be seen as a
collaborative process requiring skill and
cooperation from both supervisor and student, involving student
regulation of the emotions
4
[2017], Iss. 2, Art. 3
associated with revision and writing. In other words, a
significant aspect of responding to
supervisory feedback is learning to negotiate criticism in
productive ways (Li & Seale 2007).
Students who lose motivation and self-confidence as a result of
negative feedback may also refrain
from seeking feedback (Can & Walker 2011), while those who
are less affected by criticism are
more likely to actively seek feedback from multiple sources
(Can & Walker 2011) and critically
review their own writing (Kumar & Stracke 2007). Likewise,
students who are motivated and

focused on improvement tend to question feedback and exhibit
greater confidence in their research
ideas (Can & Walker 2010). Students with greater self-efficacy
may also be more likely to justify
their revisions and decisions not to follow all supervisor
suggestions, thereby exhibiting agentive
decision-making (Caffarella & Barnett 2010).
The study
This study was guided by the following research question:
• How do engagement with supervisor feedback and revision
decisions about the transfer
paper reflect and facilitate the development of scholarly
identity?
While prior research has demonstrated that writing is a major
site of scholarly identity
development, and that doctoral students acquire self-assessment
skills and gain confidence in their
scholarly identities through giving and receiving feedback in
peer groups, there is limited research
that examines the role of supervisor feedback in this identity
development, particularly in the early

stages of doctoral work. Given this context, this study
investigated the extent to which two first-
year doctoral students demonstrated greater or lesser agency in
their responses to supervisor
feedback on their transfer papers, and how this process was
related to the development of their
scholarly identities. We looked specifically at their evaluation
and use of supervisor feedback,
assessment of their own work and clarification of research
thinking in connection to growing
confidence and positioning of the self in relation to others.
We focused on two students because we wanted to pilot a
different conceptual framework (which
we have described earlier) and a different methodological
approach to understanding the role of
supervisor feedback. Much previous inquiry has used thematic
analysis that looks across
individuals. Instead, we chose a longitudinal narrative approach
that centers on the individual as
the focus of analysis (Elliott 2005), and tends to use low
numbers of participants given the large
data sets generated for each. The strength of narrative is that it
permits the researcher to look for

individual differences—in our case, in agency and scholarly
development. Further, incorporating a
longitudinal, multi-modal approach (see below) meant we could
triangulate different data sources
in developing a rich understandi ng of growing scholarly
identity. Similar studies that examine in-
depth feedback practices at the doctoral level have also used
small sample sizes of one to three;
ultimately, “the appropriate sample size for a qualitative study
is one that adequately answers the
research question” (Marshall & Rossman 1995).
5
Methods
Participants
Participants were two first-year doctoral students, “Sarah” and
“Isabelle”, studying education at

the University of Oxford.2 They were recruited via email
advertisement and oral announcement
made by the Graduate Program Director. Announcements were
made in class twice over three
weeks during the doctoral research seminar, followed by an
email that included the researchers’
contact information and details of the study. Two students
responded out of a possible 21 full-
time, first-year doctoral students. The small population, the
time-consuming nature of this study
and the possibility that not all students had made sufficient
progress on their papers likely explains
this response rate. The literature suggests that in studies
involving in-depth qualitative interviews,
there is no minimum number of participants; rather, the
question is whether there is “sufficiency”
of information to reflect a range of experiences, without having
“oversaturation” (redundancy)
(Seidman 2006, p.55). The two participants who responded held
very different perspectives and
prior experiences. Further, the narrative approach of this study
rendered a small sample
appropriate, as described above.

Research design
Once the project had received ethics approval, data was
collected in the following manner. Each
participant was interviewed after meeting with her supervisor,
capturing the experience of three or
four consecutive supervision sessions from mid-February
through May 2016. This was in line with
departmental policy that students can expect to meet with their
supervisors once per month.
Supervisors were not notified that their students were
participating in the research.
Each interview lasted between 30 and 45 minutes and occurred
either in person at agreed times
and locations, or via Skype, depending on the participants’
travel schedules. Interviews focused on
the students’ writing and feedback histories, their responses to
supervisor feedback on the transfer
paper, plans for revision and perspectives on their research
progress.3 Questions were drafted and
revised based on input from both authors of this study, and were
informed by the literature. Prior
to each interview, the students’ notes, written supervisor
feedback and drafts of the transfer paper

were collected and reviewed. All interviews were recorded and
manually transcribed.
Data analysis
The data was analysed using a combination of narrative analysis
and open coding. Narrative
analysis involves examining the data in a holistic way, viewing
the texts as a whole (Riessman
2008). To understand each participant’s experience, i nterviews,
student notes and drafts of the
transfer paper were narratively analysed. These analyses took
place at two different times and had
two different purposes: 1) to produce cameos representing each
participant’s writing and feedback
history, doctoral research project and supervisory patterns at the
start of this study; and 2) later to
produce summaries that demonstrated how each participant
situated the writing-feedback-revision
process within the period of the study, and how that process
affected the extent of her
identification as an academic.
2 This research was conducted while the first author was a
master’s student at the University of Oxford. The co-author of

this paper was her supervisor. Although both participants were
also members of the Department of Education, they rarely,
if ever, encountered the author outside of set meeting times, and
they did not know each other before the start of this
research.
3 The interview protocol can be obtained from the authors.
6
[2017], Iss. 2, Art. 3
Next, trends in each participant’s interpretation of feedback
were identified via open coding of
interview transcripts. Open coding, also referred to as emergent
coding, is a common method in
qualitative analysis for classifying and interpreting data
(Creswell 2013). Through this process,
five major themes were identified – agency, experience,
emotion, personal networking,
supervisory patterns – which related to how the participants
interpreted supervisor feedback,
decided what feedback to incorporate and subsequently viewed
their research projects. Using the
tools in MaxQDA 12, including the code-relations browser, the

summary grid and segment
retrieval, the data were further analysed for patterns. Quotes
from interviews that illustrated the
participants’ thinking processes in taking up feedback and
making decisions about revision were
also identified. The results of these analyses formed the basis
for the narrative summaries (noted
above) that represented the complete experience of each
participant in relation to the research
questions. All coding was separately reviewed by the co-authors
of this paper, and were clarified
and refined through discussion, codes, definitions and
interpretations.4
Results and discussion
This study set out to answer the following research question:
How do engagement with supervisor
feedback and revision decisions about the transfer paper reflect
and facilitate the development of
scholarly identity?
The results below describe how two first-year doctoral students
displayed varying levels of agency

in responding to feedback within the three strands of identity-
trajectory. Despite the contrast in
their approaches to supervisor feedback, both participants
advanced their scholarly identities by
using and evaluating feedback on their transfer papers. Given
our narrative approach, we begin
with two cameos to introduce Sarah’s and Isabelle’s experiences
of writing and feedback.
Sarah
Sarah was a first-year doctoral student whose research focused
on using digital technologies to
teach modern history at the secondary level in England. Prior to
the doctoral program, Sarah had
completed two master’s degrees in history. As a non-native
English speaker, she had concerns
about her ability to express herself in English and appreciated
feedback on language.
In the past, Sarah had had negative experiences with school and
feedback. As an adolescent, she
took criticism personally, a problem that was exacerbated by
comments from teachers that went
beyond assessing her work to issuing judgements about her
ability as a student. After completing

her bachelor’s degree and a thesis under an influential
supervisor, Sarah learned to separate herself
from criticism. At the time of this study, she had generally
learned to temper her emotional
response towards feedback.
Sarah began working on her transfer paper in October 2015,
shortly after starting the doctoral
program, and planned to submit in September 2016. Her thesis
was guided by two female co-
supervisors. Sarah met with her “core supervisor” four or five
times per term, and with both
supervisors once per term. At each supervision, Sarah and her
supervisor(s) took notes. Sarah’s
notes focused on her supervisors’ suggestions for revision, and
sources of further reading.
Following each meeting, Sarah typed her notes and uploaded
them to a forum containing a “trail”
of both her and her supervisors’ notes, resulting in an archive
reflecting the various topics they
4 A list of codes can be obtained from the authors.
7

discussed. She also received in-text written comments on the
first draft of her literature review in
the form of tracked changes and comments in a Word document.
In February, when Sarah’s first interview took place, she was in
the early stages of developing her
research project, and the major evidence of her work was
represented in a basic outline of her
research proposal that she submitted in December 2015 for the
Research Training Seminar. Over
the next few months, Sarah drafted and revised her literature
review, and discussed with her
supervisors two possible avenues for her research design. She
also drafted the transfer document,
which contained the major elements of her transfer paper,
including research purpose, research
questions, theoretical framework and methods.
Isabelle
Isabelle was a first-year doctoral student conducting research on
the demand for higher education
from refugees in a developing country. English was her second
language,5 which she mastered as

an undergraduate in the US. Isabelle enjoyed writing, which she
had taught for a total of five
years. Thus, she was familiar with giving and receiving
feedback. As a master’s student, Isabelle
also started her own freelance research business, which grew
out of various research projects she
had worked on for her professors.
Isabelle had one supervisor (male), with who she had formal
meetings with every few weeks;
however, they often met informally, having brief conversations
about readings or particular
aspects of her research. Before each formal meeting, Isabelle
emailed her supervisor an agenda
outlining the topics she wanted to discuss. During the
supervision, Isabelle took notes on her
laptop, which consisted of questions her supervisor posed,
questions she asked herself as a result
of their discussion and aspects of her paper or research project
that needed further elaboration or
reworking. Her supervisor also drew figures to visually
represent parts of her research project,
which Isabelle kept as inspiration when revising her paper. Like
Sarah, Isabelle generally did not

receive written feedback, but did receive brief handwritten
comments on one draft of her transfer
paper, which her supervisor made while they were both
traveling and unable to meet in person.
Isabelle began working on her transfer paper in October 2015,
shortly after beginning the doctoral
program. At the time of her first interview in March 2016, she
had a nearly complete draft of her
transfer paper, and hoped to expand the section on theoretical
framework and fine-tune her
methodology. Over the course of our meetings, which spanned
March to May 2016, she continued
to develop her research plan and transfer paper by piloting her
instruments, reading and revising
her research questions and research design.
Isabelle also participated in a peer-writing group. Since her
peers were unfamiliar with her
research topic, they were able to point out gaps in logic and
places that required additional context,
which she found very helpful. Isabelle submitted her transfer
application on the day of her final
interview.

5 Although both participants were non-native English speakers,
both had previously completed degrees in the English
language and demonstrated high-level language skills. Isabelle
noted her own English proficiency by admitting that she
rarely comes across words that she does not know in her
readings. Sarah was less confident in her language skills and
appreciated linguistic feedback from her supervisors, but did
note that she had no trouble comprehending the language.
Thus, while language should be considered in work on writing,
feedback and supervision, in this study the participants’
language background appeared to have little effect on how they
understood and responded to feedback.
8
[2017], Iss. 2, Art. 3
Experience, emotion, and perception of feedback
Identity-trajectory emphasises the role of agency and the
influence of individual context in
understanding present intentions and emotions (McAlpine &
Amundsen 2013). The results of the

narrative analysis suggest that both Isabelle’s and Sarah's
responses to feedback reflected their
prior experience, demonstrating how doctoral work is an
emotional journey in which students
eventually establish independence and scholarly identity. The
results further suggest that both
participants had different experiences of feedback, and that
negative emotional experiences may
be particularly formative in shaping overall perceptions of and
responses to feedback, as well as
variations in confidence and scholarly independence.
For example, as a teenager Sarah struggled with critical
feedback, viewing negative comments
from her teachers as “a mark on my person”. As a result, there
were a number of instances where
Sarah discussed emotion, experience and feedback together,
suggesting that her perception of
feedback continued to be shaped by her past, even though she
had learned to temper her negative
emotional reactions over time.
In contrast, Isabelle, who had had positive writing experiences,
appreciated criticism and

maintained a positive attitude toward feedback. While she
viewed positive comments as affirming
that certain parts of her transfer paper were “good”, she
preferred critical feedback, which she
described as “constructive”. Isabelle explained, “I mean it’s
nice to hear…‘oh, this is awesome’ or
‘this is really interesting’, but it doesn’t do anything for my
actual work because then I just end up
being left to my own devices again.” She appreciated critical
feedback because it raised questions
and identified issues in her writing, assumptions and research
design, driving the paper forward
and aiding in her desire to improve. Isabelle’s work as a writing
teacher also contributed to this
perspective, and reflected her ability to recognise that feedback
is not personal: “[My teaching
experience] made me less…vulnerable to criticism because
having given a lot of constructive or
critical feedback…I know…you’re commenting on the work
and…not…about your ability as a
researcher.” This is consistent with findings by Caffarella and
Barnett (2010), who concluded that
with more experience, students have fewer negative emotional
reactions to scholarly writing and

feedback. These findings also support the literature on peer
writing groups that suggests that
participating in writing groups advance graduate students’
confidence and familiarity with giving
and receiving feedback (Aitchison & Lee 2006).
Writing, identity, and responses to feedback: Variations in
agency
The results of the open coding suggest that the participants’
engagement with feedback was both
evidence of variation in agentive decision-making and related to
their confidence as growing
scholars. This aligns with Caffarella and Barnett’s (2010)
finding that self-efficacy, an aspect of
agency, was tied to students’ ability to justify their revisions
and decisions to ignore or reject
supervisor feedback. The results also suggest that engagement
with feedback, self-assessment and
clarifying of thinking are related to growing scholarly identity,
though in different ways for each
individual. By agentively engaging with feedback to revise their
proposals, the participants began
to: 1) solidify their understanding of the research process and
where their research fit into the
field; and 2) gain greater confidence in their research and

writing skills – key evidence of
scholarly growth. These findings are consistent with prior work
by Murakami-Ramalho et al.
(2011) and Lieff et al. (2012).
Both participants showed evidence of scholarly growth within
the framework of identity-trajectory
in ways that reflected their prior experiences and subsequent
perceptions of feedback. Isabelle
sought feedback from members of her network who were
independent of her supervisor. She also
actively engaged in feedback, evaluating comments and
embracing those that caused her to think
9
about her research in different ways, thereby influencing the
shape of her intellectual contribution
– the transfer paper – and demonstrating a growing scholarly
identity. In contrast, Sarah used only
the institutional resource of supervisor feedback to further her
understanding of the research
process and practices within scholarly writing for the social

sciences, largely accepting and
incorporating her supervisor’s feedback without evaluation,
since her supervisor was perceived as
more expert. The differences in agency evident in the
participants’ developing strands of scholarly
identity-trajectory may be understood by looking more closely
at their individual experiences and
perceptions.
Isabelle’s use of the institutional resource of supervisor
feedback was highly agentive, as she
questioned and evaluated supervisor comments throughout the
writing and revision process.
Isabelle’s interview transcripts revealed about twice as many
statements as Sarah’s about her
confidence and ownership of her project, indicating a well-
developed sense of scholarly identity.
Instances of agency were also reflected via self-assessment,
purposeful decision-making and the
ability to critically evaluate supervisor feedback. For example,
when asked whether her supervisor
provided feedback that she disagreed with, Isabelle responded
by positioning herself as different
from him:

Yes, he does, all the time. But I usually tell him…. [H]e’s a
very quantitative
person so his research is very much about, um, quantifying even
qualitative
data…. And I know that that’s not really going to work in this
context. And
I’ll…tell him…I want to do a more qualitative approach. I
want…embeddedness,
more – all these different things. Um, and he doesn’t have a
problem with that,
at least I don’t, I don’t think he does. So we very often have
conversations about
this…I’ll tell him that oh, no I don’t want that to be my thesis, I
don’t want my
thesis to be like this....
As demonstrated above, when Isabelle disagreed with a
suggestion, she discussed it with her
supervisor, implying high levels of confidence and self-
efficacy. These results align with Can and
Walker’s (2010) finding that students who were positive and
motivated to improve tended to

defend their ideas and question feedback. That said, Isabelle
also recognised when feedback was
valuable, using it at these times to critically assess her work and
further clarify her research
thinking. For example, she said:
[My supervisor] also reminded me that everything has to be
problematized…so
even things that you haven’t necessarily thought about, you
have to go through
and try to make questions out of everything because you’re
automatically…making assumptions…. That was actually a
really
good…exercise to do, and so I’ve gone through…my transfer
and starting
looking for every single assumption I might be making….
This ability to evaluate and respond to feedback was also
evident in the textual revisions Isabelle
made to her transfer paper (Table 1). For instance, Isabelle’s
supervisor identified an issue with
her third research question, noting that the available numerical

data were insufficient to warrant a
quantitative research focus. In explaining her supervisor’s
comment and her decision to remove
the research question, Isabelle said, “if I was able to gather
numbers from last six or seven years...
10
[2017], Iss. 2, Art. 3
then I could look at the numbers and look for trends.... But to
have that as part of my research
problem, or research questions, doesn’t make sense.” Isabelle
recognised the validity of the
comment, acknowledging that given the limited data it would
not be prudent to focus on refugee
student demand for higher education as a research question, and
that it would make more sense to
include it as “a kind of foundation” for her project. Her
supervisor suggested emphasising the
qualitative aspect of her study – interviewing refugees – which
Isabelle described as a “shift of
focus”, but not as a change to the methodology; she had already

intended to conduct interviews.
This response manifested in a revised version of her research
questions. Research question 3 was
removed, and research questions 1 and 2 maintained a clear
qualitative focus.
These revisions provide textual evidence of how supervisor
feedback influenced the direction of
Isabelle’s research project, while her commentary demonstrates
how her supervisor’s comment
triggered a response that led to developing thought about her
research – evidence of change in
research thinking and subsequent scholarly growth.
Table 1. Isabelle: Revision example
Original text Supervisor
feedback
Student commentary Revised text
▪ RQ1: What is the existing
provision of higher
education to refugees in
[the country], including

on site delivery, online
courses, integration into
[the country’s] higher-
education system (private
and public), and study
abroad scholarships?
▪ RQ2: What are the
possibilities for
expanding provision of
higher education to
refugees in [the country]?
▪ RQ3: What is the
demand for higher
education among refugee
students in [the country]?
• How many refugees have
applied, or wish to apply,
to higher-education
programs or scholarship

schemes, and what are the
characteristics of those
who apply (e.g. age,
gender)?
o What is the nature
of the demand for
higher-education in
terms of courses
applied for,
motivations for
pursuing higher
▪ Don’t like the
numbers issue
▪ Need more number
▪ Trend data: 2010 –
2011 – 2012 –
2013 – 2014 –
2015 – 2016 –
2017
▪ One thing you

might look at:
decline in trend,
more refugees
accessing public
institutions as
opposed to private,
look at proportion
of total of refugee
population.
▪ Does this data
exist?!
[T]his is referring to…the
quant part of my study,
because part of what I
want to do…is look at
how many is currently
accessing
education…[a]nd what the

theoretical capacity is for
universities to absorb
refugee students…. [H]e
said, that he’d been
thinking about that and
although it makes sense as
kind of like a foundation,
it doesn’t make sense as a
research question because
if you’re gonna work with
numbers, you need a lot
more.... For example…if I
was able rather to gather
numbers from last six or
seven years or something,
then I could look at the
numbers and look for
trends…. Because that

data doesn’t exist…he
then suggested that I
should focus more on the
qualitative direction.
RQ1: Which modes
and types of higher-
education delivery are
best suited to long-term
refugees?
RQ2: What are the
potential benefits of
expanding higher
education to [a
country’s] refugees in
[the country], from the
perspective of (1)
refugee youth, (2) [the
country] authorities,

(3) actors from [the
country’s] labor
market, (4) the UNHCR
and partners, and (5)
international
organizations involved
in higher-education
provision to refugees?
11
education, and
future aspirations?
Finally, Isabelle drew on a variety of interpersonal networks,
including her peer group, for support
and critique, while also expanding her inter-textual network via
reading suggestions from her
supervisor and self-identified texts relevant to her study.
Isabelle’s involvement in a peer writing

group further illustrated her willingness to seek feedback from
multiple sources and not rely solely
on her supervisor’s assessment, which is consistent with
findings that students who are less
negatively affected by criticism are more likely to seek
feedback from multiple sources (Can &
Walker 2010). Isabelle’s agentive engagement within all three
strands of identity-trajectory
demonstrate her strong sense of scholarly goals, as well as how
she continued to grow as a
researcher. Thus, Isabelle made clear that while she valued her
supervisor’s feedback, she owned
and felt confident in the research, and her positioning in
relation to others. In other words,
Isabelle’s agentive engagement with feedback reflected her
strong and growing sense of scholarly
identity.
In contrast, Sarah was less agentive in her use of supervisor
feedback, viewing her supervisors as
“professional[s]” who “know more”. This aligns to some extent
with McAlpine and McKinnon’s
(2013) finding that one rationale for seeking supervisory
support is a perception of the supervisor

as expert. Analysis of Sarah’s interview transcripts indicated
that she perceived supervisor
comments as directive and used feedback primarily for
planning, meaning that she had a vision for
her research but was uncertain as to how she wanted to shape
that vision into a concrete project;
she relied on supervisor feedback for guidance. In this way, she
demonstrated her approach toward
feedback as one of acceptance rather than critical assessment.
She subsequently showed less
confidence and independence, and continued to struggle with
positioning herself in relation to
others, indicating that her sense of scholarly identity was still
evolving. In describing the revision
process, Sarah said, “I started from [the] first correction…and
remade the things following [my
supervisor’s] suggestions, and the things took the shape that she
wanted, that I assumed was the
correct shape.” Note here the reference to “correct”, the sense
that there can be a right and wrong
way of thinking about research.
In another instance, one of Sarah’s supervisions focused on
possible avenues for her research

design. In the passage below, Sarah reiterated the main points
of the conversation, providing an
example of “planning” – using supervisor feedback to structure
the next steps in the research
project:
Around this big gap [in the literature] there are two routes….
One is to
explore…how these digital resources are used in schools…and
how they can be
helped. And there is another route, which is…design something
that can be
used.… After I…finish the lit review I will talk with…two [or]
three people [and]
I think that things will be clearer…. It’s about what is…feasible
and what is not.
From this excerpt it is evident that following discussion with
her supervisors, Sarah had a clear
understanding of the possible shapes her research might take.
This instance of “planning” did not
reflect a great amount of independent agency; rather, it
suggested that Sarah adopted her

supervisor’s perceptions of the project. This exemplifies how
Sarah’s research thinking was
strongly influenced by the supervisor as she set out the next
steps in her project – completing the
12
[2017], Iss. 2, Art. 3
literature review and deciding the feasibility of possible
research designs aided by others with
expertise in the field.
In addition to planning, there were also instances where Sarah
demonstrated some degree of self-
assessment – using feedback to confirm or reject her provisional
assessment of her work; that is, to
recognise issues within her writing and research. As we have
argued, such self-assessment is
indicative of being more agentive, and thus provides evidence
of scholarly growth. In the example
below, Sarah discussed feedback on her literature review.

The section about…[the] UK…using evidences in history,
national economic[s]
in UK, I knew before that it was something that was missed. So
I knew before
sending it, it was something missed…. And even like on the part
on ICT…the
idea of using some policy documents was in my mind. I was not
really aware of
how to handle them…. I told even to my supervisor some of the
points were
actually even my points. So…I found some of the
main…problems.
Here, Sarah recognised a potential problem in her work, but had
not found a way to deal with it.
She did, however, note that her supervisor’s comments
highlighted the issues she had
conditionally identified on her own, reflecting a sense of
growth. In this way, supervisor feedback
verified Sarah’s ability to self-assess her work, increasing
confidence in her judgement, and
thereby potentially her independence in thinking about her
research. While Isabelle was already

comfortable with self-assessment and had a well-developed
scholarly identity, Sarah needed
supervisor feedback to guide her through the process and aid
her in learning to self-assess and
become confident in her judgements.
Sarah did not refer to any interpersonal networking beyond the
relationships suggested by her
supervisors (librarians, other professors, etc.), and built her
inter-textual networks primarily from
supervisor-suggested literature. In other words, unlike Isabelle,
she did not draw on a range of
institutional resources. Sarah generally requested confirmatory
feedback from her supervisors,
wanting to know “whether [the paper] was okay or not”, and
sometimes requested feedback when
she was “stuck”, recognising a problem but unsure how to
address it. In this way, supervisors were
clearly instrumental in shaping the direction of Sarah’s
research. Yet, in choosing to follow their
suggestions, Sarah began to develop her scholarly identity by
gaining confidence in her research
thinking, and to move towards positioning herself differently
from others.

Both participants, who were at the same point in their doctoral
degrees, grew in confidence and
research knowledge over the course of this project by engaging
with supervisor feedback and
revising their transfer papers, while demonstrating differing
patterns of agency and scholarly
growth. When this study began, Sarah had a brief outline of her
literature review, which developed
into a full draft where she started to identify a gap in the
literature that her research would fill.
Though Isabelle started with a nearly completed draft of her
transfer, her research questions
evolved and she solidified her methodological approach, which
manifested in assertive, clear
statements about what the research purpose was and how the
study would be conducted. For the
two participants, supervisor feedback played different roles.
Still, feedback was as much about
advancing their research thinking and developing their
confidence as independent researchers as it
was about improving their transfer papers.
13

Doctoral students enter the program with varying levels of
experience, confidence and agency, yet
are meant to exit as independent researchers. The results of this
study suggest that these earlier
individual histories affect students’ perceptions of feedback,
and subsequently the extent to which
they are agentive within the three strands of identity-trajectory,
with agency acting as both a
vehicle for identity development and an indicator of the
student’s present sense of scholarly
identity. Table 2 summarises this interplay between experience,
agency and the strands of identity-
trajectory.
Table 2. Scholarly growth via identity-trajectory
Isabelle Sarah
Agency Acted independently; queried
supervisor feedback
Depended on supervisor feedback;

viewed supervisor as expert
Past experience
Positive view of feedback
independent of identity
Previous negative view of
feedback
Institutional Assessed and critiqued supervisor
feedback
Used supervisor feedback to make
“corrections”
Intellectual Clear vision allowed for argument
against taking up certain feedback
General vision for project but not
yet clear how to execute it
Inter-personal network Approached peers and drew on
their critiques
No evidence of feedback-seeking

beyond supervisors
Inter-textual network Used both suggestions from
supervisor and own self-selected
readings
Used suggestions from supervisor
In summary, two major findings emerged from the analysis.
First, the results suggest that the
extent to which participants were agentive in seeking,
evaluating and using feedback was related
to their previous experiences with feedback, reflecting the
emotional nature of the writing process
and the importance of individual histories in shaping students’
perspectives, aligning in part with
previous work (Can & Walker 2011; Caffarella & Barnett 2010).
This, in turn, influenced the
second finding: that agency is a vehicle for identity
development as represented in the extent of a
student’s seeking and critically engaging with feedback and
self-assessing work to clarify research
thinking in revisions of text (see also Murakami-Ramalho 2011;
Lieff et al. 2012). In other words,
each student’s sense of growing scholarly identity was reflected

in the extent to which she was
agentive in engaging with feedback. Likewise, the variation in
agentive responses to feedback and
revisions of their transfer papers revealed differences in the two
participants’ growing scholarly
identities: greater confidence and independence in research
thinking, and an ability to position
their contribution to the field in relation to others. In other
words, the relationship is bidirectional –
individuals need others’ feedback to provide a sense of
progress, but also learn to generate their
own feedback in which they own their abilities and their
research. Variations in response to
feedback – the extent to which individuals are agentive in
using/evaluating feedback—may serve
as evidence of scholarly development (increased ownership of
one’s work and a greater
understanding of academia). This process of scholarly growth
was reflected in the interwoven
strands of identity-trajectory. Both participants drew on the
institutional resources of supervisor
feedback and library resources in working to fulfill their
institutional responsibility, expanded their
inter-textual networks – and in one case drew on an

interpersonal network – to advance the writing
and revision of their transfer papers (their proposed intellectual
contribution), thereby developing
confidence as new scholars.
14
[2017], Iss. 2, Art. 3
Limitations
The small sample from the same discipline and university means
that it is uncertain to what extent
the findings would hold true in other cases. That said, the goal
was to capture the variation that
occurs in individual experience, which is common in both case
studies and studies using narrative
analysis (Cohen et al. 2013; Riessman 2008). Here, the sample
of two provided the opportunity to
delve into the participants’ experiences at a detailed level that
would have been impractical with
large numbers of participants.

Second, the participants did not always submit their documents
before interviews took place, so
sometimes there was little opportunity to prepare questions
pertaining to their revisions, which
meant asking follow-up questions at subsequent interviews
when memory may have been more
fallible. Further, because the supervisor feedback was
principally in the form of student notes,
there is uncertainty as to the accuracy of the notes, though not
the students’ interpretation of
supervisor comments.
Third, it is possible that the participants received informal
feedback in conversation or email that
was not captured as part of this study. Finally, a number of
factors may affect how graduate
students perceive feedback and the research process,
particularly supervision styles and
supervisory relationships (Deuchar 2008; de Klejin et al. 2012).
However, for the purposes of this
study, the focus was on variations in students’ responses to
feedback.

Suggestions for practice and further research
The results of this research offer several practical implications.
First, supervisors should be aware
of how they deliver critical comments, particularly to students
who may not appear confident in
their work. Second, because the results suggest that student
agency plays an important role in
advancing research thinking and scholarly identity, supervisors
may also encourage new graduate
students to seek multiple sources of feedback, and openly
discuss their research concerns as well
as comments or suggestions that they disagree with or have
questions about. Such exercises might
advance agentive behavior and help students to solidify their
vision for the research, and allow
them to practice justifying and explaining their projects while
interacting with all three threads of
identity-trajectory. Students who exhibit less agency or less
confidence in their work may be in the
early stages of developing scholarly identity, and could benefit
from deeper discussion on research
design and research purpose to flesh out their ideas and enhance
their understanding of the

possible forms their projects might take. While feedback on
language use and the requirements for
the transfer paper or thesis are useful, feedback that asks
students to evaluate their arguments and
think about their research in different ways may be even more
important in helping them gain
knowledge and establish themselves as strong researchers.
Further, Isabelle’s experience as a
writing instructor and subsequent understanding of feedback
and agentive involvement in the
writing process suggest that all students may benefit from
practicing giving and receiving
feedback in various settings, including peer writing groups.
Additional research is needed to investigate how doctoral
students respond to feedback in practice,
focusing on their decision-making processes and the extent to
which they effectively critique
feedback. Research on developing the transfer paper (thesis
proposal) in other disciplines, such as
the humanities and natural sciences, may be useful in exploring
how the nature of the discipline
may affect the development of research thinking. For example,
students in natural sciences are

often immediately involved in research activities and
publication opportunities as part of research
15
teams, while those in social sciences and humanities do the
majority of their research alone
(Delamont et al. 2000). Finally, a similar but longer study on
how doctoral students use feedback
in writing the thesis itself may be useful to track changes in
scholarly identity over an extended
period of time.
Concluding remarks
This study used a longitudinal narrative approach to explore the
relationship between students’
responses to supervisor feedback and the development of
scholarly identity. As the number of
doctoral researchers continues to grow, it is important to
maintain the quality of doctoral education
and produce skilled scholars who will contribute to the body of
knowledge. While the results

confirm several previous findings on feedback use, they offer a
more complex portrait of how past
experience, perception and use of feedback are interrelated by
examining degrees of agency.
Understood through the lens of identity-trajectory, the results
reveal how each participant actively
approached, though in different ways, the task of becoming an
independent researcher –
developing an identity as a scholar. The differences in agency
(and sense of confidence) and
growing identity highlight the value of a narrative approach
(Elliott 2005). They reinforce the
argument for future research on doctoral education to attend to
individual variation (Pearson et al.
2011). Further, the lens of the three strands of identity-
trajectory made it possible to analyze
differences in development as a writer and scholar (McAlpine,
Amundsen & Turner 2013): the
intertwining of interpersonal and inter-textual networking and
institutional resources with the
advancement of intellectual contribution. Thus, an important
contribution of this study lies in the
use of agency as a means of capturing participants’ varied
decision-making processes, and their

discussions and explanations of feedback as evidence of
scholarly growth.
References
Aitchison, C, Catterall, B, Ross, P & Burgin, S 2012. ‘Tough
love and tears’: learning doctoral
writing in the sciences. Higher Education Research &
Development, 31(4), pp. 435-447.
Aitchison, C, Kamler, B & Lee, A 2010. Publishing pedagogies
for the doctorate and beyond.
Routledge, London.
Aitchison, C & Lee, A 2006. Research writing: problems and
pedagogies. Teaching in Higher
Education, 11(3), pp. 265-278.
Anderson, C, Day, K & McLaughlin, P 2008. Student
perspectives on the dissertation process in a
masters degree concerned with professional practice. Studies in
Continuing Education,
30(1), pp. 33-49.

Basturkmen, H, East, M & Bitchener, J 2014. Supervisors’ on-
script feedback comments on drafts
of dissertations: socialising students into the academic
discourse community. Teaching
in Higher Education, 19(4), pp. 432-445.
Caffarella, R S & Barnett, B G 2010. Teaching doctoral students
to become scholarly writers: the
importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher
Education, 25(1), pp.
39-52.
16
[2017], Iss. 2, Art. 3
Cameron, J, Nairn, K, & Higgins, J 2009. Demystifying
academic writing: reflections on
emotions, know-how and academic identity. Journal of
Geography in Higher Education,
33(2), pp. 269-284.

Can, G & Walker, A 2011. A model for doctoral students’
perceptions and attitudes toward written
feedback for academic writing. Research in Higher Education,
52, pp. 508-536.
Can, G & Walker, A 2014 Social science doctoral students’
needs and preferences for written
feedback. Higher Education, 68, pp. 303-318.
Carless, D 2006. Differing perceptions in the feedback process.
Studies in Higher Education,
31(2), pp. 219-233.
Carlino, P 2012. Helping doctoral students of education to face
writing and emotional challenges
in identity transition. In Castello, M & Donahue, C (eds.),
University writing: selves and
texts in academic societies. Emerald Group Publishing Limited,
Bingley, UK, pp. 217-
234.
Chanock, K 2000. Comments on essays: do students understand
what tutors write?, Teaching in
Higher Education, 5(1), pp. 95-105.

Cho, K, Cho, M H, & Hacker, D 2010. Self-monitoring support
for learning to write. Interactive
Learning Environments, 18(2), pp. 101-113.
Clarke, M, Hyde, A & Drennan, J 2013. Professional identity in
higher education. In Kehm, B and
Teichler, U (eds.), The academic profession in Europe: new
tasks and new challenges.
Springer, New York, pp. 7-22.
Cohen, L, Manion, L & Morrison, K 2013. Research methods in
education (7th ed.). Taylor &
Francis, Hoboken, NJ.
Creswell, J W 2013. Qualitative inquiry & research design:
choosing among five approaches (3rd
ed.). SAGE Publications, London.
de Klejin, R et al. 2012. Master’s thesis supervision: relations
between perceptions of the
supervisor-student relationship, final grade, perceived
supervisor contribution to
learning and student satisfaction. Studies in Higher Education,

37(8), pp. 925-939.
Delamont, S, Atkinson, P & Odette, P 2000. The doctoral
experience: survival & success in
graduate school: disciplines, disciples & the doctorate. Fahner
Press, London, UK.
Deuchar, R 2008. Facilitator, director or critical friend?:
contradiction and congruence in doctoral
supervision styles. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(4), pp.
489-500.
East, M, Bitchener, J & Basturkmen, H 2012. What constitutes
effective feedback to postgraduate
research students? The students’ perspective. Journal of
University Teaching and
Learning Practice, 9(2), p. 18.
17
Elliot, J 2005. Using narrative in social research: qualitative
and quantitative approaches. Sage
Publications, London.

Ghazal, L, Gul, R, Hanzala, M, Jessop, T & Tharani, A 2014.
Graduate students’ perceptions of
written feedback at a private university in Pakistan.
International Journal of Higher
Education, 3(2), pp. 13-27.
Hattie, J & Timperley, H 2007. The power of feedback. Review
of Educational Research, 77(1),
pp. 81-112.
Ivanic, R 1998. Writing and identity: the discoursal
construction of identity in academic writing.
John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
Ivanic, R 2004. Discourses of writing and learning to write.
Language and Education, 18(3), pp.
220-245.
Kamler, B & Thomson, P 2014. Helping doctoral students write:
pedagogies for supervision (2nd
ed.). Routledge, New York.
Kumar, V & Stracke, E 2007. An analysis of written feedback

on a PhD thesis. Teaching in
Kwan, B 2009. Reading in preparation for writing a PhD thesis:
case studies of experiences.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(3), pp. 180-191.
Cho, K, Cho, M H & Hacker, D J 2010. Self-monitoring support
for learning to write. Interactive
Learning Environments, 18, no.2, pp. 101-113.
Lea, M R & Stierer, B 2011. Changing academic identities in
changing academic workplaces:
learning from academics’ everyday professional writing
practices. Teaching in Higher
Education, 16(6), pp.605-616.
Lee, A & Boud, D 2003. Writing groups, change and academic
identity: research development as
local practice. Studies in Higher Education, 28(2), pp. 187-200.
Li, S & Seale, C 2007. Managing criticism in Ph.D. supervision:
a qualitative case study. Studies
in Higher Education, 35(4), no.4, pp. 511-526.

Lieff, S, Baker, L, Mori, B, Egan-Lee, E, Chin, K & Reeves, S
2012. Who am I? Key influences
on the formation of academic identity within a faculty
development program. Medical
Teacher, 34, pp. e208-215.
Marshall, R & Rossman, G B 1995. Designing qualitative
research. SAGE Publications, London.
McAlpine, L, Amundsen, C & Turner, G 2013. Identity-
trajectory: reframing early career
academic experience. British Educational Research Journal,
40(6), pp. 952-969.
McAlpine, L & McKinnon, M 2012. Supervision – the most
variable of variables: student
perspectives. Studies in Continuing Education, 35(13), pp. 1-16.
18
[2017], Iss. 2, Art. 3

Murakami-Ramalho, E, Militello, M & Piert, J 2011. A view
from within: how doctoral students
in educational administration develop research knowledge and
identity. Studies in
Nichol, D & Macfarlane-Dick, D 2006. Formative assessment
and self-regulated learning: a model
and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in
Higher Education, 31(2), pp.
199-218.
Paré, A 2011. Speaking of writing: Supervisory feedback and
the dissertation. In McAlpine, L &
Amundsen, C (eds.), Doctoral education: Research-based
strategies for doctoral
students, supervisors and administrators. Springer, London, pp.
59-74.
Pearson, M & Brew, A 2002. Research training and supervision
development. Studies in Higher
Education, 27(2), pp. 135-150.
Phillips, E M 1982. The Ph.D. as a learning process (PhD diss.).

University College, London.
Riessman, C K 2008. Narrative methods for the human sciences.
SAGE Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
San Miguel, C & Nelson, C 2007. Key writing challenges of
practice-based doctorates. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, 6, pp. 71-86.
Seidman, I 2006. Interviewing as qualitative research: a guide
for researchers in education and
the social sciences (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press, New
York.
Thomson, P & Kamler, B 2016. Detox your writing: strategies
for doctoral researchers.
Routledge, London.
University of Oxford Department of Education 2016. General
handbook: DPhil student
information. Viewed 25 March 2015 at
https://weblearn.ox.ac.uk/access/content/group/4e468b1a-8b50-
4e85-9c73-

b210725703c4/dphil_tos.html.
Wegener, C, Meier, N & Ingerslev, K 2014. Borrowing
brainpower – sharing insecurities. Lessons
learned from a doctoral peer writing group. Studies in Higher
Education, 41(6), pp. 1-
14.
19
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Internet and Higher Education
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/iheduc
The role of an online first-year seminar in higher education
doctoral
students' scholarly development
Crystal E. Garciaa,⁎ , Christina W. Yaob
a Auburn University, 4082 Haley Center, Auburn, AL 36849-
5221, United States of America
b University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 134 Teachers College Hall,
Lincoln, NE 68588-0360, United States of America

A R T I C L E I N F O
Keywords:
Doctoral education
Scholarly development
Online education
Socialization
A B S T R A C T
In this study, we explored higher education doctoral students'
perceptions of their socialization, development,
and preparation in an online foundational course for all
incoming doctoral students in a higher education
program at a public research university in the Midwest. Framed
by Weidman, Twale, and Stein's (2001) graduate
socialization framework and Anderson's (2008) model of online
learning, the findings of this qualitative case
study shed light on ways online students developed their
scholarly identity while gaining knowledge of the skills
and habits necessary for navigating their doctoral program.
Implications for practice and future research in
online education and the socialization and development of
graduate students are discussed.
1. Introduction
Doctoral programs are opportunities for socialization into an
aca-
demic discipline, particularly as a way to prepare graduates for
suc-
cessful academic careers (Austin & McDaniels, 2006; Tierney,
1997).
Socialization in graduate education is “the processes through
which

individuals gain the knowledge, skills, and values necessary for
suc-
cessful entry into a professional career requiring an advanced
level of
specialized knowledge and skills” (Weidman et al., 2001, p. 5).
Yet at
the same time, students in education doctoral programs often
experi-
ence a culture clash between their experiences as practitioners
(e.g.,
teachers, administrators) and the scholarly expectations of
academia
(Labaree, 2003). The identity shift experienced by doctoral
students is
compounded by the prevalence of online learning in graduate
educa-
tion. Fully online graduate students often experience lower
sense of
community than students in traditional face-to-face and hybrid
courses
(Rovai & Jordan, 2004), which could lead to program
dissatisfaction
and attrition. Thus, it is imperative to better understand how
education
doctoral students make sense of their identity and role within
their new
online scholarly community in order to better support their
scholarly
identity development. Specifically, we seek to answer the
question,
“how do higher education doctoral students develop their
scholarly
identity within an online doctoral seminar course?”
The imperative of understanding the online context is driven by
the

continuous growth of online education. Since the early 2000's,
online
learning in higher education has made substantial gains in terms
of
enrollment. In terms of the percentage of students enrolled in
degree-
granting postsecondary institutions, the percentage of total
institutional
enrollment in online courses grew from 9.6% in 2002 to 32% in
fall of
2011 (Allen & Seaman, 2013). Using 2014 federal enrollment
data,
Allen, Seaman, Poulin, and Straut (2016) reported that over 2.8
million
college students—14% of all higher education enrollment—were
solely
enrolled in online courses while over 2.9 million were taking
some
courses online, representing another 14% of postsecondary
enrollment.
According to the study, graduate online learning made up a
significant
portion of overall distance education with over 960,000 enrolled
(Allen
et al., 2016). In fact, because of the growth in online education,
“pro-
fessional and graduate programs have been targeted for growth”
(McClintock, Benoit, & Mageean, 2013, p. 2), particularly
because on-
line graduate education may support working adults who
“require
flexible access to education” (McClintock et al., 2013, p. 3).
With the changing nature of doctoral education, particularly in
online contexts, the imperative to socialize and train the newest

gen-
eration of scholars has gained attention across various
stakeholders.
Outcomes of doctoral education include graduates who seek
employ-
ment as faculty, administrators, policy makers, and researchers,
yet
much of doctoral socialization tends to lead towards faculty
prepara-
tion. Thus, stakeholders such as the Carnegie Project on the
Education
Doctorate (CPED) also emphasize the importance of preparing
scholar-
practitioners (Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate,
2018). For
example, CPED has gained popularity in recent years as a
consortium of
member institutions that are focused on practitioner preparation
in
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.04.002
Received 16 February 2018; Received in revised form 12 April
2019; Accepted 29 April 2019
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C.E. Garcia),
[email protected] (C.W. Yao).
The Internet and Higher Education 42 (2019) 44–52
Available online 02 May 2019
1096-7516/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Inc.
T

education doctorate (EdD) programs. CPED, which includes
many on-
line program partners, emphasize s “the application of
appropriate and
specific practices, the generation of new knowledge, and for the
stew-
ardship of the profession” (Carnegie Project on the Education
Doctorate, 2018). Overall, doctoral socialization and scholarly
devel-
opment must include multiple contexts and outcomes, including
pro-
fessional aspirations and the online context. As a result,
university ad-
ministrators and faculty must take into consideration how they
can
better support all graduate students and their scholarly
development
within online contexts.
2. Literature review
2.1. Doctoral socialization into scholarly identity
Doctoral programs are “designed to prepare a student to become
a
scholar: that is, to discover, integrate, and apply knowledge, as
well as
to communicate and disseminate it” (Council of Graduate
Schools,
2005, p. 1). Yet some students report insufficient socialization
into
academia, particularly those seeking academic careers (Austin,
2002).
As a result, careful attention has been given in more recent
years to the

scholarly development of doctoral students, particularly in
relation to
the socialization processes for research and scholarship and the
devel-
opment of research self-efficacy (Author, 2018). Researcher
develop-
ment, a component of academic preparation, is a
multidimensional
process in the development of doctoral students (Evans, 2011).
Learning to conduct research is key in all academic disciplines.
Research is a “transformative activity where a state of
knowledge is
advanced” (Williams & Ormond, 2010, p. 1), and for doctoral
students,
research training culminates in the production of a dissertation
at the
end of the doctoral journey. Because the dissertation is of
critical im-
portance, research training throughout students' academic
experience is
key, particularly because research training is both the process
and the
outcome of conducting research (Evans, 2011). In addition,
developing
writing skills is imperative in helping doctoral students
transition to the
expectations of scholarly writing (Caffarella & Barnett, 2000).
Caffar-
ella and Barnett found that critiques from faculty and their
peers,
through face-to-face and continuous feedback, were most
helpful in
doctoral students becoming stronger and more confident
scholarly
writers. Faculty supervisors are especially important in

“inducting
students into their discipline's writing practices” (Cotterall,
2011, p.
423). As a result, faculty must embrace their role in scaffolding
both
research and writing training in the overall scholarly
development of
doctoral students.
Without sufficient training, students may experience difficulty
in
the research and writing expectations of their program of
studies,
possibly leading to student departure from their academic
program. As
a result, the doctoral socialization process into the demands of
research
and scholarship is critical in doctoral students' decision to
persist or
depart from their studies, as concluded by Gardner's (2008)
study on
the influence of socialization on chemistry and history graduate
stu-
dents. Therefore, consideration of the early socialization of new
scho-
lars is critical for the transition to successful doctoral
education.
Despite overall commitment to doctoral student success,
doctoral
programs vary in their approach to recruiting and retaining
doctoral
students, and as such, socialization processes vary between
programs,
disciplines, and institutional priorities. For example, Gardner
(2008)

found that student experiences in graduate education vary
depending
on a variety of factors, including discipline, student
background, and
life situations. As a result, students may experience challenges
in their
doctoral program when they have difficulty “fitting the mold”
(Gardner, 2008, p. 126). Challenges in doctoral programs are
especially
pronounced for part-time students, who have to balance multiple
roles
including full time work and personal responsibilities (Gardner
&
Gopaul, 2012). The socialization experiences of part-time
doctoral
students may include feelings of disconnection and “missing out
on”
(Gardner & Gopaul, 2012, p. 72) the full academic experience.
One may
extend the notion of part-time students to distance students,
who may
also have difficulty fitting the mold of traditional graduate
education.
2.2. Online learning in graduate education
While online education offers many benefits including
flexibility for
adult learners (McClintock et al., 2013), the literature has also
docu-
mented some of the difficulties instructors face in online
education
including the need for additional preparation time necessary for
online
teaching, demands to respond quickly to student emails, and the

need
for training and familiarity with the online environment (see
Coyner &
McCann, 2004; Lyons, 2004). Yet perhaps one of the most
pervasive
challenges of distance education—particularly in relation to
student
socialization—stems from a lack of personal contact between
the in-
structor and students (Coyner & McCann, 2004; Hockridge,
2013;
McClintock et al., 2013; Swaggerty & Broemmel, 2017).
Findings from
Zhao, Lei, Yan, Lai, and Tan's (2005) meta-analytical study of
the lit-
erature on online education asserted that “interaction is key to
effective
distance education” (p. 1861) and that including face-to-face
and online
components in online educational settings more effectively
supported
online learning. Similarly, Means, Toyama, Murphy, and Baki's
(2013)
meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness of online and
blended
learning formats also found that blended learning resulted in
higher
levels of student learning outcomes than solely online formats.
This was
also reflected in Baran, Correia, and Thompson's (2013)
qualitative
examination of effective practices of exemplary teachers in
online en-
vironments. The results of the study showed that effective
instructors
implemented a number of strategies to combat challenges

inherent in
online instruction such as a lack of instructor/student
interaction and
decreased instructor presence or visibility within the course.
Given the unique nature of online education as distinct from
face-to-
face classroom settings, a substantial portion of the recent
literature on
student experiences in distance or online education in college
settings
focuses on student learning, satisfaction, and sense of
community.
While the work focused on a sense of community explicitly
examines
the role of interactions with others, much of the research
focused on
online learning and satisfaction also have ties to peer and
faculty in-
teractions, which underscores the significance of these
interactions in
relation to students' learning experiences. This was illuminated
in the
statement by McClintock et al. (2013) that, in addition to
questions
regarding the quality of online programs, institutional personnel
must
also consider implications associated with distance education
such as
“how to maintain a ‘community of scholars,’ and how best to
deal with
other facets of graduate learning and experience more
commonly ad-
dressed in an exclusively on-campus environment” (p. 3).
Some research has examined ways instructors have attempted to

increase a sense of community in online environments. Choi
(2016)
examined graduate student experiences with asynchronous
online
learning by exploring the effect of metacognitive and cognitive
learning
strategies on online student learning satisfaction. The results of
a
multiple regression analysis showed that peer learning was a
positive
predictor of learner satisfaction. Papadima-Sophocleous and
Loizides
(2016) investigated the use of particular tools and technological
plat-
forms to enhance online learning experiences and found that the
use of
both synchronous and asynchronous tools enhanced learning for
grad-
uate students enrolled in a computer-assisted language learning
mas-
ter's program. Students reported satisfaction with the weekly
tutorials
implemented in the program in terms of motivation and the
opportu-
nity to ask questions in contrast to learning in isolation.
Likewise,
Lebaron and Miller (2005) found that students appreciated the
oppor-
tunity to engage with their peers in an online environment
through
online jigsaw role playing. In another qualitative case study
exploring
the experiences of graduate student learners in an online reading
edu-
cation course, Swaggerty and Broemmel (2017) found that
students

reflected on two essential aspects that aided their learning,
among those
C.E. Garcia and C.W. Yao The Internet and Higher Education
42 (2019) 44–52
45
was interactions with others. Notably the interactions noted
most often
by participants were synchronous forms of contact.
While online education offers the benefit of convenience and in-
creased access, concerns persist regarding how to keep students
en-
gaged and connected to their peers, faculty, and institution as a
whole.
Accordingly, some literature has examined ways students
experience
and develop a sense of community in online learning
environments. For
instance, Byrd's (2016) qualitative, phenomenological study
explored
the experiences of 12 doctoral students in online degree
programs in
family therapy and professional counseling in terms of
influences that
shaped their sense of community. Importantly, the researcher
found
that being part of a cohort was a crucial component of this
experience
and provided support to students as they moved through the
program
together with their peers and learned to collaborate with one

another.
However, not all experiences with platforms intended to engage
students in collaborative work results in intended consequences.
Phirangee’s (2006) work underscores the notion that negative
aspects
of a seemingly beneficial online learning tool may also exist.
Challenges
with peer interactions were explored and findings demonstrated
that
online peer interaction can negatively affect sense of belonging
for
graduate students in online learning environments (Phirangee,
2006).
Lack of community and low sense of belonging were the most
common
complaints in other studies related to online learning (Rovai &
Jordan,
2004; Song, Singleton, Hill, & Koh, 2004; Vonderwell, 2003).
In addi-
tion, online students reported that one major disadvantage of
online
learning was that distance learning made it difficult to establish
a “one-
on-one relationship” (Vonderwell, 2003, p. 83) with their
instructors.
The online context made it difficult to establish deeper
connections and
that students may not “benefit from the professors' expertise in
the
online course” (Stodel, Thompson, & MacDonald, 2006, p. 9).
Results of
these studies shed light on several patterns that negatively
affected
students' sense of community in an online course. Peer
interactions and

instructor presence are important components of online
education, yet
successfully building a strong learning community prove to be
difficult.
3. Theoretical frameworks
Our study is framed by two distinct yet complementary
frameworks:
Weidman et al.'s (2001) graduate socialization framework and
Anderson's (2008) model of online learning. Weidman et al.
provided
the lens for examining graduate student socialization through
multiple
components, including outside communities, background of
students,
and professional communities. More importantly, Weidman et
al.'s
framework “illustrates the nonlinear, dynamic nature of
professional
socialization and the elements that promote identity with and
com-
mitment to professional roles” (p. 37), which we believe
accurately
reflects the continuously shifting nature of doctoral education.
At the core, the framework centers on the university and
graduate
program, including the importance of institutio nal culture,
socialization
processes, and socialization elements such as knowledge
acquisition
and involvement. For the purpose of this study, we focus on the
so-
cialization processes, which include interaction, integration, and
learning. Interaction includes both peer and faculty interaction.

In our
study, we also include the interactions with the course Graduate
Assistant (GA) in this component and recognize that the GA
takes a
liminal space that floats between serving as a peer and a course
in-
structor. Integration emphasizes students' involvement in the
activities
of their academic program and professional fields as well as
their sense
of fit with their program. Learning includes students'
investment in
“developing the capacities necessary to become professional
practi-
tioners in their chosen areas” (Weidman et al., 2001, p. 38). All
three of
these socialization components fall within the purview of the
academic
program, specifically with faculty setting the norms for teaching
and
research. Although other factors such as previous educational
training,
family influence, and job responsibilities affect doctoral student
socia-
lization, we focus specifically on the socialization processes as
they fall
within the scope of our study.
We noted that one limitation of Weidman et al.'s (2001)
framework
is that it seemingly adheres to traditional graduate socialization
ex-
periences; that is, it implies that graduate socialization occurs
in a face-
to-face graduate program. Thus, we use Anderson's (2008)

model of
online learning as a complementary framework to situate and
con-
textualize graduate student socialization in an online course.
The model
centers on the three main components in online learning: the
learners,
the instructors, and the content. Focusing on the interactions
between
the human actors and the content, the model takes into
consideration
the pacing of online teaching, independent study, and learning
re-
sources. In addition, peer interactions are a critical component,
parti-
cularly because this online community “binds learners in time,
and thus
forces regular sessions” (p. 61). Most importantly, this model
ac-
knowledges how the community environments “are particularly
rich
and allow for the learning of social skills, collaboration, and the
de-
velopment of personal relationships among participants” (p. 61).
As a
result, the online learning environment is learner-centered,
knowledge-
centered, assessment-centered, and community-centered that
results in
effective learning for all members of the learning community
(Anderson, 2008).
The two complementary frameworks (Anderson, 2008; Weidman
et al., 2001) helped us examine our research question. We used
aspects
of the socialization processes as outlined by Weidman et al.

(2001)—interaction, integration, and learning—in conjunction
with the
learners, instructors, and content as identified in Anderson's
(2008)
model to better understand how graduate student socialization is
mediated within an online environment. We contribute to the
two
frameworks by taking into consideration factors related to
distance
education and online learning that may contribute to or detract
from
graduate student socialization, specifically in the areas of
interaction,
integration, and learning.
4. Methods
This work was drawn from a larger qualitative Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning (SoTL) project that examined a required
fully
online course for all incoming doctoral students in a higher
education
program at one public research university in the Midwest. SoTL
re-
search enables instructors to study their own instructional
practices and
ways these practices affect student learning. As Kathleen
McKinney
(2006) described, SoTL is “systematic reflection and study on
teaching
and learning made public” (p. 38). Thus, the course was taught
by the
second author, who was assisted in the course by the first
author. The
fully online course was intended to assist new students with
developing

their scholarly identity while gaining knowledge of the skills
and habits
necessary for navigating their doctoral program. In addition, the
foundations of educational inquiry as well as personal
development
related to research were addressed, including the development
of cri-
tical thinking and analytical skills. Thus, the intersection of
course
learning outcomes, early development of first-year doctoral
students,
and contextual factors of online learning indicated a need to
assess the
teaching and learning processes of this foundational course.
For the purposes of this particular work, we conducted a
qualitative
case study (Yin, 2014). Data collection included multiple
components,
including class assignments and participant interviews. A
content ana-
lysis was conducted of written assignments in the course,
including
discussion board posts, reflexivity briefs, and other written
papers. We
recognized the limitations a SoTL project may carry in terms of
the
extent to which students felt they could honestly critique their
course
experience. We minimized this limitation in two primary ways.
First, in
order to avoid conflict of interest during the course, we waited
until the
completion of the semester to inform students about the
opportunity to
participate in the study and to conduct participant interviews.

We also
chose to have the first author conduct all interviews since she
was
completing her last year as a PhD student and would not
encounter the
C.E. Garcia and C.W. Yao The Internet and Higher Education
42 (2019) 44–52
46
students again in a similar role. Furthermore, we reasoned that
students
may have felt more comfortable discussing their experiences
honestly
with an individual they recognized as more of a peer than as the
pri-
mary instructor for the course.
4.1. Data sources
Selection of participants was a result of purposeful sampling,
which
is used when “the investigator wants to discover, understand,
and gain
insight and therefore must select a sample from which the most
can be
learned” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 96). Recruitment emails
were
sent to all enrolled students in one foundational doctoral course
(15
total) at the conclusion of the course, all of whom successfully
com-
pleted the course. Given the small size of our participant pool

and the
fact that these individuals were in the same course, we chose
not to
fully disaggregate the participants' demographic information as
we felt
they would be easily identifiable. Twelve students agreed to
participate
in the study, the majority of which represented a new entering
cohort of
students; two of the students were in their third semester in the
doctoral
program, two were in their second, and the rest were in their
first se-
mester. Two of the students were pursuing an EdD and ten were
working on a PhD in Higher Education. Seven of the
participants
identified as women and three participants identified as
Students of
Color. Two of the students planned to pursue a faculty position
after
graduation, nine sought administrative roles, and one student
did not
report their future career goals.
Each participant chose their own pseudonym to be used
throughout
this study. In doing so, we disrupt the “act of power” (Guenther,
2009,
p. 412) inherent in researchers choosing participant names;
therefore,
in an effort to share this power, we asked participants to select
their
own pseudonyms and have honored them within this paper.
Using semi-structured interviews provided the opportunity to
ask

follow-up or clarifying questions related to participants'
specific and
unique experiences in their course (Glesne, 2010). Each
interview
lasted approximately 60 min and with the exception of one face-
to-face,
all were conducted virtually on Skype. Interviewing participants
was
the most appropriate mode of inquiry because it helped us learn
about
their experiences and allowed for their lived experiences to
emerge
(Charmaz, 1996). In addition, we asked students for permission
to
analyze de-identified course assignments and discussions drawn
from
the online discussion board. As a result of conducting
interviews and
reviewing course assignments, we were able to collect rich data,
which
has increased the trustworthiness of the data collected (Glesne,
2010).
4.2. Data analysis
When coding, we made categories that were based on the
research
questions and conceptual framework from which we interpreted
emerging themes (Rossman & Rallis, 2003). We utilized
deductive
coding, which includes a “start list” (Miles, Huberman, &
Saldaña,
2013, p. 81) based on this study's interview protocol. First cycle
coding
included searching for broad categories based on the start list,
and then

discussion the themes that emerged from the participants'
interviews
and course documents. Themes were coded by identifying
appropriate
phrases that related to our themes. Both written content and
interview
transcripts were coded for themes. Notably, we did not analyze
dis-
cussion board posts and assignments in light of peer
interactions, but
rather examined these to understand the extent to which
students
grasped the material and communicated a sense of development
in their
understanding of their roles as doctoral students. Thus, we did
not
examine discussion posts from students that did not choose to
partici-
pate in this study.
After concluding first cycle coding, we moved on to second
cycle
coding as a way to reduce the number of themes and categories
(Miles
et al., 2013). We organized the first cycle codes by clustering
them
under common themes or patterns that emerged from the
interviews.
With continuous reflection and discussion, we defined and
refined the
codes into categories that we believed to be representative of
partici-
pant experiences.
We recognize that this current study is analyzed and interpreted

based on our roles as the primary researchers; thus, we
employed tri-
angulation as a way to ensure credibility of our findings. We
utilized
two types of Denzin's (1978) approaches to triangulation:
multiple
methods and multiple investigators. The use of interviews as
well as
course assignments provided multiple methods, as we used
interviews
and document analysis. In addition, investigator triangula tion
was used
when multiple investigators independently analyzed multiple
forms of
data and then compared the findings. In addition, the credibility
of our
findings are supported through “adequate engagement in data
collec-
tion” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 246).
Beyond our role as researchers, we were also the primary
instructor
and teaching assistant for the students in this course. As a
result, we
were deeply engaged in the learning process of the study's
participants
and were able to spend a full semester observing the course. We
re-
mained very cognizant of our own positionality. As a course
assistant,
the first author remained aware of her dual role as a mentor and
in-
structor within the course. Although she worked as a graduate
assistant
in the department and was able to connect face to face with
faculty and

other students on campus, as a student in the program herself,
she had
taken several fully online courses and understood the challenges
stu-
dents encountered in forming a sense of community at a
distance. She
intentionally addressed situations that arose in the course and
points of
confusion from an empathetic perspective by validating
students' con-
cerns and sharing personal experiences of how she learned those
lessons
through her program.
The second author created this course as an offering for new
higher
education doctoral students in her department. As someone who
at-
tended a face-to-face, on-campus doctoral program, the shift to
teaching
in an online doctoral program was a new challenge, particularly
when
considering issues of graduate socialization and student
learning. In her
four years as a faculty member, she has attended several
conferences
and workshops for professional development related to online
teaching.
Over the past few years of teaching, she has come to appreciate
teaching online as it pushes her to be more innovative with
engaging
graduate students in coursework.
5. Findings and discussion
This section offers an examination of the study's findings in

In a 1,000-1,250-word paper, consider the outcome and process meas

In a 1,000-1,250-word paper, consider the outcome and process meas

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to In a 1,000-1,250-word paper, consider the outcome and process meas

Similar to In a 1,000-1,250-word paper, consider the outcome and process meas (20)

More from LizbethQuinonez813

More from LizbethQuinonez813 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

In a 1,000-1,250-word paper, consider the outcome and process meas