1 / 18

Negating distance

This study explores a technology-mediated cohort model to improve the doctoral experience, addressing issues such as isolation and poor supervision skills. The cohort model fosters group cohesion, shared goals, and social networking, while also presenting challenges like over-cohesiveness and age-related phenomena. The program structure includes online and face-to-face components, along with coursework focused on advanced research, teaching, and leadership in distance education. Preliminary findings show positive outcomes in building relationships, support networks, and emotional presence among participants. Recommendations include the importance of face-to-face meetings, maintaining mentoring structures, and emphasizing the role of personalities in supervision relationships.

kyra-cline
Télécharger la présentation

Negating distance

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Negating distance Enhancing the doctoral experience through a technology-mediated cohort model Dr Debra Hoven With: Dr Negin Mirriahi, Dr Aga Palalas, Dr Debra Walker Centre for Distance Education Athabasca University debrah@athabascau.ca

  2. Issues in Doctoral Research & Supervision by Distance • Some generic & some specific to DE: • ABD (“All But Dissertation”) • Dropout in early stages of project or dissertation • Lack of support structures & processes: staff & students ( Malfroy (2005) • Student isolation (Denicolo, 2004) • Inadequate writing preparation (Kamler & Thomson, 2004) • Poor supervision skills (Connell, 1985)

  3. Some solutions • Cohort Model • Support • Group cohesion • Shared goals & difficulties • Social Networking • Contact & communication

  4. Some negatives … • focus internal to group • over-cohesiveness • “us-and-them” phenomenon • age-related phenomena

  5. Questions … & Solutions? • why do these issues occur … • how can they be addressed? • what pedagogies can be applied? • what technologies can assist?

  6. Process through the programhttp://cde.athabascau.ca/programs/doctoral/intro.php

  7. Professional Doctorate: EdD • cohort-based (8-12 students) • 4-year program: fully online • initial online introductory session (early June) • 5-day f2f orientation (August in 1st year) • 1 course per semester = full-time

  8. Coursework: 4 Core • Advanced topics & issues in DE (7 months) 2 Advanced research in education 3 Teaching & learning in DE (+internship) 4 Leadership & project management in DE

  9. Looking from the past to the present …

  10. Qualitative study: Preliminary • Participatory action research: longitudinal • Survey 1 at end of Orientation • Survey 2 at end of each course • Verbal feedback & evaluation at end of research seminars (recorded) • Interviews with new graduates  mentors • Feedback used for refinements & integration of suggestions

  11. Responses to date (3 interviewees) • Themes • Orientation • Powerful experience • Surprise at groupings • Relationship already established with Assignment 1 group members ++ • Found tools to communicate • Laid foundation for subsequent groupings

  12. Responses to date (3 interviewees) • Themes • Coursework • Trusted group members ++ • Confidence in expertise of other members • Variety of group configurations • Time poor • (Virtual) meetings inevitable • Became closer: • professional 1st • gradually personal/social also • Support & sharing “Emotional presence”

  13. Responses to date (3 interviewees) • Themes • Post-Coursework (Candidacy, research project, Final defence) • Known group members ++ • “sense of belonging” • Working in own area but members as resources: emotional & academic • Made conscious effort to meet: virtually & f2f at conferences etc • “Sliding” support network • Established regular support and sharing meetings • Shared successes & miseries

  14. Responses to date (3 interviewees) • Themes • Post-graduation • Some will remain “friends for life” • Working in own area but members as resources: emotional & academic/intellectual • Distance + effort required + common experiences  brought them closer • “there is no distance”, “didn’t matter, the miles” • Quicker & richer experience with cohort • “extended cohort” with families of members • On-going collaborations & meetings • Increased motivation

  15. Recommendations & findings • F2f meetings important: • Orientation (“connected as a cohort”) • Conferences • mid-program “Shaped coursework experience” • Model tools for synchronous meetings • Maintain cohort-mentoring structure • Supervisor relationship: “make or break” • Personalities more important than other aspects

  16. To the present & the future …

  17. Thank you!  Your questions? Email: debrah@athabascau.ca AU web profile: http://cde.athabascau.ca/faculty/hoven/debrah.php Doctoral website: http://cde.athabascau.ca/programs/doctoral/intro.php Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/debrah Blog:http://deincanada.blogspot.com/

More Related