TechTrends

, Volume 58, Issue 4, pp 54–61 | Cite as

Connecting practice, theory and method: Supporting professional doctoral students in developing conceptual frameworks

Article

Abstract

From an instrumental view, conceptual frameworks that are carefully assembled from existing literature in Educational Technology and related disciplines can help students structure all aspects of inquiry. In this article we detail how the development of a conceptual framework that connects theory, practice and method is scaffolded and facilitated in an online doctoral program in Educational Technology. For online professional practice students, conceptual frameworks provide a lens to critically examine experiential knowledge and a solid foundation for the implementation of interdisciplinary research at a distance from their university campus and faculty mentors.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Becker, H. S. (2007). Writing for social scientists (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Coates, C. (1997). The caring efficacy scale: Nurses’ selfreports of caring in practice settings. Advance Practice Nursing Quarterly, 3(1), 53-59.Google Scholar
  3. CPED (2010). Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. http://cped.org.
  4. Dawson, K., Cavanaugh, C., Sessums, C., Black, E. & Kumar, S. (2011). Designing a professional practice doctoral degree in Educational Technology: Signature pedagogies, implications and recommendations. Journal of Distance Education, 25(3). http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/767
  5. Dawson, K. & Kumar, S. (In Press). An analysis of professional practice Ed.D. dissertations in Educational Technology. TechTrends. Google Scholar
  6. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Hold Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  7. Dewey, B. I. (2004). The embedded librarian: Strategic campus collaborations. Resource Sharing and Information Networks, 17(1/2), 5-17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kaplan A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. San Francisco, CA: Chandler.Google Scholar
  9. Kumar, S., Dawson, K. Black, E. W., Cavanaugh, C., & Sessums, C. D. (2011) Applying the Community of Inquiry framework to an online professional practice doctoral program. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(6). http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/978/1961
  10. Kumar, S., Johnson, M. L., & Hardemon, T. (2013). Dissertations at a Distance: Students’ perceptions of Online Mentoring in a Doctoral Program. Journal of Distance Education, 27(1). Retrieved November 13, 2013 from http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/835
  11. Leshem, S., & Trafford, V. (2007). Overlooking the conceptual framework Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(1), 93-105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McMillan, J. H. & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in education: A conceptual introduction (5th ed.). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  13. Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3d ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  15. NLN. (2011). Advancing Care Excellence for Seniors. Retrieved July 5, 2012, from National League for Nursing: http://www.nln.org/facultyprograms/facultyresources/ACES/index.htm
  16. Novak, J. D., & D. B. Gowin. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (1997). Writing a research proposal: The role of library anxiety, statistics anxiety, and composition anxiety. Library and Information Science Research, 19, 5-33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Reason, P. (Ed.) (1988). Human inquiry in action. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  19. Reason, P. (1994). Three approaches to participative inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 324-339). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Robson, C. (2011). Real world research. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Shields, P. M., & Tajalli, H. (2006). Intermediate theory: The missing link in successful student scholarship. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 12, 313–334.Google Scholar
  22. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

(Endnotes)

  1. 1.
    Qualifying exams are currently being revised but these activities will remain part of program activities.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of FloridaMobileUSA

Personalised recommendations