Matching Items (2)
Description
The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to understand the key constructs and processes underlying the mentoring relationships between doctoral students and their mentors. First, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to evaluate the measurement structure underlying the 34-item Ideal Mentor Scale (IMS; Rose, 2003), followed by an examination of factorial invariance and differences in latent means between graduate students differing by gender, age, and Master's vs. Doctoral status. The IMS was administered to 1,187 graduate students from various departments across the university at Arizona State University (ASU); this sample was split into two independent samples. Exploratory factory analysis on Sample 1 (N = 607) suggested a new four-factor mentoring model consisting of Affective Advocacy, Academic Guidance, Scholarly Example, and Personal Relationship. Subsequent confirmatory factor analysis on Sample 2 (N = 580) found that this four-factor solution was superior to the fit of a previously hypothesized three-factor model including Integrity, Guidance, and Relationship factors (Rose, 2003). Latent mean differences were evaluated for the four-factor model using structured means modeling. Results showed that females placed more value on factors relating to Affective Advocacy, Academic Guidance, and Scholarly Example, and less value on Personal Relationship than males. Students 30 and older placed less value on Scholarly Example and Personal Relationship than students under 30. There were no significant differences in means for graduate students pursuing a Master's versus a Doctoral degree. iii Further study qualitatively examined mentoring relationships between doctoral students and their faculty mentor using the Questionnaire on Supervisor Doctoral Student Interaction (QSDI) coupled with semi-structured interviews. Graduate support staff were interviewed to gather data on program characteristics and to provide additional context. Data were analyzed using Erickson's Modified Analytical Inductive method (Erickson, 1986). Findings showed that the doctoral students valued guidance, advocacy and constructive, timely feedback but realized the need to practice self-reliance to complete. Peer mentoring was important. Most of the participants valued a mentor's advocacy and longed to co-publish with their advisor. All students valued intellectual freedom, but wished for more direction to facilitate timelier completion of the degree. Development of the scholarly identity received little or no overt attention.
ContributorsGarrett, Pamela S (Author) / Smith, Mary Lee (Thesis advisor) / Potts, Shelly A. (Thesis advisor) / Thompson, Marilyn S. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
This action research study is a mixed methods investigation of doctoral students’ preparedness for multiple career paths. PhD students face two challenges preparing for multiple career paths: lack of preparation and limited engagement in conversations about the value of their research across multiple audiences. This study focuses on PhD students’ perceived perception of communicating the value of their research across academic and non-academic audiences and on an institutional intervention designed to increase student’s proficiency to communicate the value of their PhD research across multiple audiences. Additionally, the study identified ways universities can implement solutions to prepare first-generation PhD students to effectively achieve their career goals.
I developed a course titled Preparing Future Scholars (PFS). PFS was designed to be an institutional intervention to address the fundamental changes needed in the career development of PhD students. Through PFS curricula, PhD students engage in conversations and have access to resources that augment both the traditional PhD training and occupational identity of professorate. The PFS course creates fundamental changes by drawing from David Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory and the Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) developed by Robert Lent, Steven Brown, and Gail Hackett. The SCCT looks at one’s self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, goal representation, and the interlocking process of interest development, along with their choice and performance.
I used a concurrent triangulation mixed methods research model that included collecting qualitative and quantitative data over 8 weeks. The results of the study indicated that PhD students’ career preparation should focus on articulating the relevancy of their research across academic and non-academic employment sectors. Additionally, findings showed that PhD students’ perception of their verbal and non-verbal skills to communicate the value of their research to both lay and discipline specific audiences were not statistically different across STEM and non-STEM majors, generational status, or gender, but there are statistical differences within each group. PhD programs provide students with the opportunity to cultivate intellectual knowledge, but, as this study illustrates, students would also benefit from the opportunity to nurture and develop practical knowledge and turn “theory into practice.”
I developed a course titled Preparing Future Scholars (PFS). PFS was designed to be an institutional intervention to address the fundamental changes needed in the career development of PhD students. Through PFS curricula, PhD students engage in conversations and have access to resources that augment both the traditional PhD training and occupational identity of professorate. The PFS course creates fundamental changes by drawing from David Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory and the Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) developed by Robert Lent, Steven Brown, and Gail Hackett. The SCCT looks at one’s self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, goal representation, and the interlocking process of interest development, along with their choice and performance.
I used a concurrent triangulation mixed methods research model that included collecting qualitative and quantitative data over 8 weeks. The results of the study indicated that PhD students’ career preparation should focus on articulating the relevancy of their research across academic and non-academic employment sectors. Additionally, findings showed that PhD students’ perception of their verbal and non-verbal skills to communicate the value of their research to both lay and discipline specific audiences were not statistically different across STEM and non-STEM majors, generational status, or gender, but there are statistical differences within each group. PhD programs provide students with the opportunity to cultivate intellectual knowledge, but, as this study illustrates, students would also benefit from the opportunity to nurture and develop practical knowledge and turn “theory into practice.”
ContributorsCason, Jennifer (Author) / Liou, Daniel (Thesis advisor) / Barber, Rebecca (Committee member) / Justice, George (Committee member) / Schugurensky, Daniel, 1958- (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016