2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/153670
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Teaching the Doctoral Student: Lighting the Fire
Abstract:
Teaching the Doctoral Student: Lighting the Fire
Conference Sponsor:Sigma Theta Tau International
Conference Year:2002
Conference Date:July, 2002
Author:Lotas, Marilyn, PhD
P.I. Institution Name:Case Western Reserve University
Title:Associate Professor
Objective: The purpose of this study was to describe the essence and art of teaching doctoral students through the words of both senior professors identified by their colleagues as master teachers, and doctoral students. Design: This was qualitative study using focused, in-depth interviews with identified subjects. Population, Sample, Setting, Years: The population for this study included experienced senior professors and students who had completed all coursework for their doctoral programs. The sample included seven faculty and four students. Criteria for selection of the faculty informants were: Faculty identified by their peers as evidencing 1) excellence of scholarship; experience in teaching doctoral students; recognized excellence in teaching; acknowledged commitment to teaching. Faculty were drawn from a variety of disciplines including: nursing (2); philosophy (2); political science (1); and biology/physiology (2). Faculty subjects were drawn from four universities across the United States. The student sample was a convenience sample obtained from the roster of currently active doctoral students in the investigator's home university. Student disciplines included: English (2); nursing (1); and physiology (1). All interviews were conducted within a 3 month period in Spring, 2000. Questions of Study: Faculty interview questions included: 1) Describe your professional and teaching background. 2) When you think about teaching an undergraduate vs. a doctoral course, how do you think about, define or identify the content to be covered? 3) Is your preparation different? If so, how? 4) How do your expectations of students change at each level? 5) How do your expectations of yourself change at each level? 6) What do you think students expect of you? 7) Describe any strategies, techniques or assignments you find particular useful at the doctoral level. 8) What is the richest or most exciting teaching experience you've had and what made it so? Student interview questions included: 1) What are your expectations of course content at the doctoral level? 2) How would you describe your best professor? What made him/her so good? 3) Describe an experience that was less than satisfactory. 4) What are your expectations of faculty? 5) What are your expectations of yourself? 6) How are you different as a student now than you were as an undergraduate? Method: Faculty subjects were identified by questioning faculty at four universities regarding who they considered to be outstanding scholars and master teachers. Scholarship was defined in terms of juried publications, major extramural funding and peer recognition. Teaching excellence was defined by outstanding student and peer teaching evaluations, teaching awards and a professed commitment to teaching. Identified faculty were approached and asked to participate. Interviews required 1-3 hours. Student volunteers were requested from the roster of active doctoral students. A convenience sample was obtained from those volunteering. Interviews required 1-3 hours. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Interviews were analyzed by having each of two investigators read the transcripts and identify common themes and concepts. The themes identified by the two investigators were compared and reconciled. Where differences existed between the two analyses, a third investigator read and analyzed the transcripts. Themes were organized into major concepts. Findings: Major themes identified included: 1) the faculty as scholar and role model; 2) faculty as mentor; 3) the importance of openness and engagement; 4) boundaries and accessibility; 5) faculty as expert. Conclusions: All informants identified teaching as important and challenging regardless of the level of the student. At the doctoral level the need for both high levels of expertise, demonstrated scholarship and a willingness to engage intensely with the student was emphasized. Faculty particularly emphasized the role of students in enriching faculty research and intellectual life. Implications: Consideration must be given to the development of the faculty's own scholarship before s/he undertakes the role of teaching and mentoring a doctoral student. As increasing numbers of nursing doctoral programs are developed, emphasis must be placed on the development of faculty scholarship and mentorship abilities to support those programs and their students.

Repository Posting Date:
26-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
Jul-2002
Sponsors:
Sigma Theta Tau International

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleTeaching the Doctoral Student: Lighting the Fireen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/153670-
dc.description.abstract<table><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-title">Teaching the Doctoral Student: Lighting the Fire</td></tr><tr class="item-sponsor"><td class="label">Conference Sponsor:</td><td class="value">Sigma Theta Tau International</td></tr><tr class="item-year"><td class="label">Conference Year:</td><td class="value">2002</td></tr><tr class="item-conference-date"><td class="label">Conference Date:</td><td class="value">July, 2002</td></tr><tr class="item-author"><td class="label">Author:</td><td class="value">Lotas, Marilyn, PhD</td></tr><tr class="item-institute"><td class="label">P.I. Institution Name:</td><td class="value">Case Western Reserve University</td></tr><tr class="item-author-title"><td class="label">Title:</td><td class="value">Associate Professor</td></tr><tr class="item-email"><td class="label">Email:</td><td class="value">mjl25@po.cwru.edu</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-abstract">Objective: The purpose of this study was to describe the essence and art of teaching doctoral students through the words of both senior professors identified by their colleagues as master teachers, and doctoral students. Design: This was qualitative study using focused, in-depth interviews with identified subjects. Population, Sample, Setting, Years: The population for this study included experienced senior professors and students who had completed all coursework for their doctoral programs. The sample included seven faculty and four students. Criteria for selection of the faculty informants were: Faculty identified by their peers as evidencing 1) excellence of scholarship; experience in teaching doctoral students; recognized excellence in teaching; acknowledged commitment to teaching. Faculty were drawn from a variety of disciplines including: nursing (2); philosophy (2); political science (1); and biology/physiology (2). Faculty subjects were drawn from four universities across the United States. The student sample was a convenience sample obtained from the roster of currently active doctoral students in the investigator's home university. Student disciplines included: English (2); nursing (1); and physiology (1). All interviews were conducted within a 3 month period in Spring, 2000. Questions of Study: Faculty interview questions included: 1) Describe your professional and teaching background. 2) When you think about teaching an undergraduate vs. a doctoral course, how do you think about, define or identify the content to be covered? 3) Is your preparation different? If so, how? 4) How do your expectations of students change at each level? 5) How do your expectations of yourself change at each level? 6) What do you think students expect of you? 7) Describe any strategies, techniques or assignments you find particular useful at the doctoral level. 8) What is the richest or most exciting teaching experience you've had and what made it so? Student interview questions included: 1) What are your expectations of course content at the doctoral level? 2) How would you describe your best professor? What made him/her so good? 3) Describe an experience that was less than satisfactory. 4) What are your expectations of faculty? 5) What are your expectations of yourself? 6) How are you different as a student now than you were as an undergraduate? Method: Faculty subjects were identified by questioning faculty at four universities regarding who they considered to be outstanding scholars and master teachers. Scholarship was defined in terms of juried publications, major extramural funding and peer recognition. Teaching excellence was defined by outstanding student and peer teaching evaluations, teaching awards and a professed commitment to teaching. Identified faculty were approached and asked to participate. Interviews required 1-3 hours. Student volunteers were requested from the roster of active doctoral students. A convenience sample was obtained from those volunteering. Interviews required 1-3 hours. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Interviews were analyzed by having each of two investigators read the transcripts and identify common themes and concepts. The themes identified by the two investigators were compared and reconciled. Where differences existed between the two analyses, a third investigator read and analyzed the transcripts. Themes were organized into major concepts. Findings: Major themes identified included: 1) the faculty as scholar and role model; 2) faculty as mentor; 3) the importance of openness and engagement; 4) boundaries and accessibility; 5) faculty as expert. Conclusions: All informants identified teaching as important and challenging regardless of the level of the student. At the doctoral level the need for both high levels of expertise, demonstrated scholarship and a willingness to engage intensely with the student was emphasized. Faculty particularly emphasized the role of students in enriching faculty research and intellectual life. Implications: Consideration must be given to the development of the faculty's own scholarship before s/he undertakes the role of teaching and mentoring a doctoral student. As increasing numbers of nursing doctoral programs are developed, emphasis must be placed on the development of faculty scholarship and mentorship abilities to support those programs and their students.<br/><br/></td></tr></table>en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-26T12:25:55Z-
dc.date.issued2002-07en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T12:25:55Z-
dc.description.sponsorshipSigma Theta Tau Internationalen_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.