About Us: http://www.the-criterion.

com/about/
Archive: http://www.the-criterion.com/archive/
Contact Us: http://www.the-criterion.com/contact/
Editorial Board: http://www.the-criterion.com/editorial-board/
Submission: http://www.the-criterion.com/submission/
FAQ: http://www.the-criterion.com/fa/

ISSN 2278-9529

Galaxy: International Multidisciplinary Research Journal

www.galaxyimrj.com

www.the-criterion.com The Criterion: An International Journal in English

ISSN: 0976-8165

Dissertation Writing through a Community of Practice Approach

Dr. Kalpana Mukunda Iyengar
&
Dr. Roxanne Henkin

Abstract:
According to Arum & Roksa (2011), graduate students cannot depend on their
professors to guide them with writing scholarly articles. Articulating atwenty-page paper
can be time consuming and tedious while a two to three hundred page dissertation is a
daunting task. Writing a doctoral exposition can be overwhelming for students with a
topic that is culturally relevant to a certain demographic of people and the topic may not
be familiar to other students. A community of practice established by Dr. Brodyproved
beneficial to Dr. Ekalavya 1, then a doctoral candidate and it was an effective practice that
enabled Dr. Ekalavyato write a successful dissertation. The current case study is intended
to explore the strategies employed by the dissertation chair to enable her doctoral
candidate to successfully write the dissertation. The study also investigates the writing
processes implemented by the dissertation chair. A few important scaffolding schemes
included: brainstorming, clarification of ideas through discussions, elaboration of
chapters, and extensive revising once a week for four semesters. This academic coaching
approach can be implemented in writing classes across the curriculum.
Keywords: community of practice, coaching,dissertation writing processes.
Introduction
I appreciate the craft, the way you wove your findings around previous research. This
takes both (a) knowing your data; and (b) knowing the existing body of literature in
which you are situating your study. Nice, Dr. Ekalavya! (Committee Member 5, 2014)
Learning to articulate ones chosen topic for the doctoral dissertation can be
problematic for some students unless the student finds a guide who understands the
students research skills and writing style early on. PhD students are expected to come to
academe with complex discourse that is appropriate to graduate level course work. Even
with two masters in English, Dr. Ekalavya had to relearn to write papers during
herdoctoral course work in the Education department. Upon that, dissertation writing
was a paradigm shift for her because she had to sharpen her writing conventions and style
that was appropriate for dissertation audience in the Education discipline. In the English
department, we are taught to write on literary works; however, in the Education
department, we explore the pedagogical aspects of texts and materials. Dr. Ekalavya
needed a chair that had expertise and experience in the writing area and in the instructive
domain of education. Askillful, passionate, knowledgeable, and persevering chair is the
key to successful dissertation writing for a doctoral candidate.

Ekalavya is a character in Mahabharata and he was an ideal student who

succeeded through self-motivation and devotion to his teacher.

Vol. 6, Issue. V

237

October 2015

www.the-criterion.com The Criterion: An International Journal in English

ISSN: 0976-8165

Through this case study, we explored the process ofenjoyable and successful
dissertation writing. The case study also examined the various strategies implemented
including weekly meetings, collaborative discussions, and revising and editing. The
qualitative study looked at the effectiveness in scaffolding the doctoral candidate
including the following academic coaching strategies:
1. San Antonio Writing Project Pilot Study
2. Writing Workshop Model
3. Weekly Discussions
4. Collaborative Reading
5. Revising and Elaboration
Theoretical Framework:
This study draws on the communal tenet of learning called the community of
practice propounded by Wenger (2002). A community of practice is established when
members mutually agree to engage in activities that become a partnership overtime and
their conversations facilitate knowledge formation and growth. Learning is a collective
activity where two or more people interact regularly to grow (Roll et al, 2011).
According to Lave and Wenger (as cited in Smith, 2009),
Learning is in the conditions that bring people together and organize a
point of contact that allows for particular pieces of information to take on
a relevance; without the points of contact, without the system of
relevancies, there is not learning, and there is little memory. Learning does
not belong to individual persons, but to the various conversations of which
they are a part (p.1).
These conversations paved way to better understanding of the topic discussed because
there is a constant exchange of ideas and rearranging of text. In addition, collaboration
produces better understanding of the topic under exploration due to the mutual interest,
time to scrutinize thoughts, and a support system established in such an invested
academic exercise (Ryan & Pintrisch, 1998).
Methodology:
This qualitative study employs the case study approach. According to Mertens
(2010), Case studies focus on a particular instance (object or case) and reaching an
understanding within a complex context (p. 233). This research was conducted through a
writing project summer institute and doctoral dissertation course hours for four semesters.
The principle investigator decided to ask Dr. Brody to become her dissertation chair
because of Dr. Brodys experience with directing doctoral students, leadingthe writing
project, her expertise in supervising students interested in exploring culturally relevant
topics, and her respect for Dr. Eakalavyas enthusiasm about narrative research, identity
construction, heritage languages, performing arts,culture, and marginalized Asian Indian
people. The data for this study include a questionnaire, principal investigators memo
notes, dissertation chairs discussion, interview, and dissertation chapter drafts.

Vol. 6, Issue. V

238

October 2015

www.the-criterion.com The Criterion: An International Journal in English

ISSN: 0976-8165

Positionality:
Dr. Ekalavya
Adoctoral candidate of Asian Indian origin worked with her dissertation chair for
four semesters at a major university in the southwest of the US. The candidate has been
acquainted with the chair since 2007, when the candidate as a SAWP summer institute
fellow. Consequently, she has taken several of the literacy courses taught by the chair as
a doctoral student. The student had a Bachelor of Science degree and two masters
degrees in English (Linguistics and Commonwealth literature) and English from an
Indian and a US university. She has a long history of teaching English including ESL,
intensive English, literature, rhetoric and composition, and literacy courses at high school
and university levels. She has written a masters thesis, creative writing texts, and several
papers for the Ph.D. courses before embarking on the dissertation writing process.As a
culturally grounded Hindu Brahmin, bothered by the marginalization of Asian Indian
culture, religion, and literature in the US, Dr. Ekalavya wanted topursue her dissertation
on the chosen topic. Deeply troubled by the lack of research on Asian young adults
identity negotiation in literature although there are about two million Asian Indian people
living in the US (2010 Census), Dr. Ekalavya embarked on this dissertation topic after
she was able to locate a chair that was supportive and inspiring.
Dr. Brody
The instructor for the course is both a facilitator and a learner along with the class.
As a liberal, white, Jewish, female, she has a strong social justice stance. She believes in
public schools and that they should be a place where all students can grow, learn and
thrive. She knows that this is not yet the reality for all children, but works toward that
future. She believes that education is transformative and that students and teachers need
to be supported in fighting restrictive regulations and high-stakes testing that limit
students opportunities for rich literacy teaching.
The instructor also believes that all voices need to be honored and heard: Latino/a,
Black, Asian, Anglo, LGBTQ and indigenous because these multiple voices reflect the
cultural, linguistic, historic, ethnic, gender, (and more) ways that are important for
teaching and learning. She believes that teachers must advocate for all students including
underrepresented populations, English language learners, students living in poverty,
students with disabilities and LGBTQ and bullied youth. Teachers need to continue to
support and create safe classrooms where all students can thrive.
Study Participant
The dissertation chair was Dr. Brody. She is Jewish and she values tradition and
culture. She is the San Antonio, Limpopo and Haridwar Writing Project Director and she
is well published with many articles in peer reviewed journals and two books on social
justice issues. Dr. Brody has been teaching literacy courses for twenty-five years at major
universities and she has chaired and has been a member of many dissertation committees.
She also has eighteen years of classroom teaching experience in Chicago area schools.
Her passion for professional development and networking with teachers from preK to university including Texas Education Agency Grant Funded PD activity at low SES
school districts, and the continued PD activities through the writing project has made her
a popular and sought after professor for researchers like myself who are invested in

Vol. 6, Issue. V

239

October 2015

www.the-criterion.com The Criterion: An International Journal in English

ISSN: 0976-8165

literacy related education. This qualitative research project is intended to explore the
characteristics of what makes Dr. Brody an effective collaborator and chair of students
dissertation committees. This is a case study and hence cannot be generalizable, but the
findings may inform researchers and new doctoral students who must find a passionate
topic and then write a two hundred-pagedissertation to graduate.
Data:
The data source for this study is the notes based onacademic conversations, PIs
memo notes, drafts of students dissertation, and interview responses (both oral and
written) with Dr. Brody. The doctoral candidate and her chair met weekly for two hours
during four semesters.
Data Analysis:
The study utilized categorical content analysis (Leiblich, et al, 2008), a type of
qualitative design where the researcher categorizes the text by analyzing units of text.
Categorical analysis is dividing the text into smaller units for analysis. According to
Leiblich et al (2008) categorical analysis is conducted using the following steps:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Selection of the subtext

Definition of the Content Categories
Sorting the Material into Categories
Drawing Conclusions from the Results (113-114).

The selection of the subtext involves classifying text as a separate unit depending
on the research question. For instance, this study is looking into scaffolding strategies. So
we explored those areas where the chair helped her candidate cognitively advance by
analyzing the texts in the interview responses. All of the other information is ignored in
the chosen text.
Dr. Brody described in her interview that Dr. Ekalavya was not yet confident with
conducting research (In Dr. Ekalavyas case, she had a strong background in research,
but was not confident about what she was doing. We went over her analysis each week, I
shared my insights and questions, and then she went back to her independent work for the
rest of the week). Through the periodic and consistent revisions of the drafts after
discussion it was possible for Dr. Ekalavya to scaffold to becoming an independent
researcher.
Another strategy used to scaffold the candidate was through the use of the writing
workshop (The writing workshop was probably the biggest factor in her writing growth.
Dr. Ekalavya was very organized, hard-working, and had great follow-through... Dr.
Ekalavya took notes and would arrive the next week with the revised draft of the section
we had worked on). Timely organization, attentiveness to the chairs suggestions, follow
up discussions, and the writing workshop improved Dr. Ekalavyas writing.
Content categories are the different theories or themes that emerge from the text.
The categories are driven by a theory. For example, this study draws from Wengers
(2000) community of practice. Community of practice is establishing an atmosphere
where people invested in a similar endeavor are working together to achieve better
results. The categories are defined using this theory depending on the sub texts chosen

Vol. 6, Issue. V

240

October 2015

www.the-criterion.com The Criterion: An International Journal in English

ISSN: 0976-8165

for analyses. Some students are inductive thinkers while others are deductive scholars.
Given that Dr. Ekalavya was an inductive (reaching a conclusion based on the
observations) learner, the read aloud and questioning techniques helped her arrive at
more descriptive and deeper chapters (In Dr. Ekalavyas case, her writing changed a
great deal over the course of the dissertation. She began with shorter sentences and
general observations about the data. She began to become more fluent after several
drafts. By the time we were at the end of the dissertation, her writing style was very
fluent and professional).
The bicultural identity construction and culturally relevant topics are two of the
favorite areas of research for Dr. Ekalavya and Dr. Brody encouraged her to pursue both
of these capacities. The chair was open and interestedin the candidates topic although the
chair was not an insider to the religious and cultural practices expressed by the study
participants (I always try to support each doctoral student in their desired topic for their
dissertationDr. Ekalavyas study was particularly interesting to me. Although I am not
an Asian Indian American, I come from a minority background as a Jewish American
and I identify as an outsider. I understood at a deep level the feeling expressed by many
of the students in the study; the difficulty of being/living in two cultures). The chair
brought her own experiences and empathy as a minority group member and
underrepresented demographic of people in the US.
Sorting the Material into Categories is allocating discrete sentences to categories.
This step calls for an external readers assistance so validity can be established. Leblich
et al (2008)posits that When two or more judges are involved in sorting contents into
categories, this can be done independently, to allow the calculation of the interjudge
reliability, or jointly, to create higher sensitivity to the text and its meaning to different
readers (113-114). Also, Lincoln & Guba (1985) recommend external readers
examination of the data analysis to establish validity. We asked a SAWP co-director, who
has the experience of directing the project for five years. The teacher consultant also
teaches at the university where the chair and candidate work and the external reader has
several years of experience teaching at secondary schools both in the US and abroad.
External Readers Comments:
If the intention of this case study, as stated in the abstract, is "to explore the
strategies employed by the dissertation chair to enable her doctoral candidate to
successfully write the dissertation," then I believe the strategies employed by the team
were successful. By establishing a "community of practice" around the discussion of Dr.
Ekalavyas dissertation, Dr. Brody set up a framework for scaffolding the learning of her
doctoral candidate while allowing her to grow in confidence. In using a writing workshop
model, Dr. Brodyused drafting, peer conferencing, and revising and weekly follow-up
meetings to build on Dr. Ekalavya'sdissertation writing skills. Additionally by "sorting
material into categories," Dr. Brody broke the work into manageable chunks so that her
student was not overwhelmed by a mass of material.The fact that both members of the
team were writers and researchers,they were able to set up a mutually respectful
community of writers where honest discussion of craft was possible. The weekly
meetings provided consistent opportunities for brainstorming and for sharing aloud,
which is a proven technique for the improvement of writing.

Vol. 6, Issue. V

241

October 2015

www.the-criterion.com The Criterion: An International Journal in English

ISSN: 0976-8165

Finally, Drawing Conclusions From the Results involves statistical computations

of the sentences and categories, etc. For the purpose of this study, we will include a
simple table of the number ofdrafts generated during the entire dissertation writing
process. They will also document the number of times the chapters were revised. The
following table illustrates the dissertation writing, revising, and discussion sessions (see
table 1 below).
Table 1: Meetings and Drafts
Weeks
Revisions
104
52 Times

Drafts
50

Research
Multiple

The candidate met her chair for 104 weeks and revised the chapters 52 times
based on the discussions and reading of the literature after each meeting. About 50 drafts
were produced after revising the dissertation chapters. The candidate updated her
literature review whenever necessary after researching on topics suggested by the chair.
For example, when I asked about the writing research, the chair suggested that I add a
detailed section on writing from the Graves (1990) to McCarthey and Mkhize (2013). She
also advised me to find research about the writing workshop model because we were
implementing that model in our own dissertation writing process.
Another example is with the research on analyzing narrative materials because
she wanted me to understand the process involved in analyzing stories. Dr. Brody also
suggested that Dr. Ekalavya conduct extensive research on the tools of analysis. Hence,
the candidate explored the impact of narrative and narrative inquiry before she
conducted data analysis. These two constructs were developed after careful discussions
and revision of the chapters several times. The following graph illustrates Dr. Brodys
scaffolding strategies and Dr. Ekalavyas dissertation writing process (see figure1below).

Dr. Brody's Scaffolding Strategy

Dr. Ekalavya's Dissertation Writing Process

Conference

Revision

Discussion

Draft

Oral Reading

Research

Figure 1: Scaffolding Strategy and Dissertation Writing Process

Vol. 6, Issue. V

242

October 2015

www.the-criterion.com The Criterion: An International Journal in English

ISSN: 0976-8165

Conclusion:
The chair was appreciative and content with the progress the candidate made after
four semesters of dedicated work (Dr. Ekalavya was successful in the writing of her
dissertation for several reasons that I observed. First of all, she was a very hard worker.
She had the discipline and the routine established so that she could continue her progress
from week to week. Secondly, she had a positive attitude and didnt appear to let the
feedback set her back. Instead, she took it as a challenge to grow and improve. Third,
her topic was one that was important both to her and to education in general. Shes
succeeded in what is not that easyto contribute new knowledge to the field and to
identify a new area of research). The collective efforts put forth by the chair and the
candidate and the prolonged length of time the candidate requested helped both of them
to accomplish their goals of scaffolding and successfully completing the dissertation.
Findings:
Dr. Brody readily agreed with the topic choice when the doctoral candidate
expressed her intent to conduct research. The candidate was apprehensive because the
topic was not well received by her colleagues at work. Some professors said that the
candidate would not be able to establish herself in the academe if the topic was pursued
because it was not popular or sought after in schools and in the literature in the US. The
candidates peers in her cohort did not support her with the topic. They lacked the
information in the literature about the demographic of people and had no prior knowledge
of Asian Indian peoples cultural practices that Dr. Ekalavya was exploring in her
However, the candidate wanted to write the dissertation on a topic that was close to her
heart and she also wanted to research on her own people with similar experiences like
hers marginalized, forced to write on a topics that were not culturally relevant or
emotionally fulfilling to her, ridiculed for differences, and thwarted by oppressing the
funds of knowledge Asian Indian students bring to our classrooms.
Dr. Brody willingly agreed to help the candidate with whatever academic and
emotional support the doctoral candidate needed to write the dissertation. Merely looking
at the other dissertations and reading scholarly articles on topics closer to the one she
opted to write on did not help the student; she needed guidance with academic coaching,
peer reviewing,writing drafts, and collaborative learning. However, there was no other
student writing on a topic that was closer to the candidates area, so she had to depend
entirely on her chair for guidance with content and structure. One valuable learning tool
in this process was the read-it-aloud exercise, where the chair and the candidate read the
chapters aloud during the weekly discussions. The read aloud sessions helped Dr.
Ekalavya to listen to the writing and think of further revisions while engaged in
metacognition.
The university support centers such as the writing lab and graduate lab that helped
students with dissertation writing did not have much exposure to the candidates topic.
Ultimately, the chair was the guide, advisor, mentor, and the peer coach for this doctoral
candidate. Dr. Brody played all of the different roles with care so the candidate was
getting sufficient feedback in a timely fashion. The most important learning component
was the weekly reading and discussion of the dissertation chapters. The same chapter was
read multiple times for clarity and relevance.

Vol. 6, Issue. V

243

October 2015

www.the-criterion.com The Criterion: An International Journal in English

ISSN: 0976-8165

The chair wanted the candidate to master research skills and the various steps
needed for dissertation writing such as the IRB process, data collection, appropriate
instruments for data collection, and analyses. An independent study would scaffold the
candidate so she could participate in the dissertation writing fully prepared with a firm
knowledge of the methodology. The SAWP summer institute was a self-improvement
mechanism that gave the candidate experience in using the theoretical knowledge of
methodology section of the dissertation by conducting a preliminary pilot qualitative
study during the summer institute.
San Antonio Writing Project Pilot Study:
The candidate registered for an independent study at the SAWP summer institute
so she could immerse herself in the qualitative research process. The candidate was under
the supervision of Dr. Brody, who is the SAWP director.Dr. Ekalavya was not a class
participant this time, where she was required to fulfill all of the writing assignments and
presentations during the four-week professional development institute. The candidate had
not done a full-length study including the institutional review board consent, data
collection, analysis, and member checking independently. This self-governing study that
lasted for 5 weeks helped scaffold the candidate in conducting research. She was able to
conduct a study independently with the guidance of the director (also the candidates
dissertation chair).
The following processes were employed during the weekly meetings.
1. San Antonio Writing Project Pilot Study
2. Writing Workshop Model
3. Discussions
4. Collaborative Reading
5. Revising and Elaboration
Writers Workshop:
Although the writers workshop model may include the implementation of four
steps such as mini lesson, status of the class, writing time, and sharing, we both spent
most of our time doing mini-lesson and sharing. The candidate did the writing and
revising based on the chairs critique at home because of time constraints during the
weekly sessions. The most productive outcome of the sessions was the mini-lesson. Peha
(2008) illustrates the three important steps involved ina mini-lesson: brevity, focus, and
authenticity. We incorporated all of these steps in our writing workshops.
Discussion of Discourse:
Dr. Brodys instruction on the language requirement for a dissertation was crucial
for the candidate. The candidate was under the impression that dissertations use verbose
rhetoric and is intended for researchers who have expertise with the topics and was not
meant for students who are still in school. According to the chair, the dissertation is an
academic document that helps students who are interested in a similar topic and the
dissertation must be written in a language when other people can readily understand it
and can be replicated by other researchers (committee member, 2014). Dr. Brody always
let Dr. Ekalavya talk about the chapters and the subheadings. After she heard the

Vol. 6, Issue. V

244

October 2015

www.the-criterion.com The Criterion: An International Journal in English

ISSN: 0976-8165

presentation, she would clarify vague areas and offer suggestions that helped improve Dr.
Ekalavyas clarity of thoughts in the chapters
Collaborative Reading:
One important learning process was the joint reading of the chapters. Dr. Brody
read all of the chapters several times until they made perfect sense. She would read the
chapters repeatedly without getting tired or losing interest. Many Ph.D. students complete
their course work and they may not pursue the dissertation and remain as ABDs. The
doctoral candidate must have the stamina to receive the constructive criticism and be
willing to revise based on the suggestions provided by the chair. Hence, it is crucial for a
candidate to follow through the instructions and work towards completing the exposition.
Every time we read the chapters together, new ideas would come to Dr. Ekalavyas mind,
and she made notes of all of these revelations. She also made sure to incorporate all of
these ideas before the follow up meeting. For example, one of the discussions was on the
relationship between surface and deep cultures and this is what Dr. Brody asked the
candidate to elaborate on for the final chapter of the dissertation-

Figure 2: Dr. Brodys discussion notes

Revision and Elaboration:
The heart of our conference sessions was revising the chapters and elaborating on
the concepts that needed clarification. The chair as the writing coach, offered a dialogic
opportunity for Dr. Ekalavya to articulate her ideas on a regular basis. She had to read the
chapters attentively before the meetings so she could clarify any questions the chair
would ask. This exercise follows Bakhtinian (1986) premise, where writing is not a
solitary activity, but a conversational initiative. Dr. Ekalvya was able to co-construct
knowledge with her chair through her diligent and patient listening to the students ideas.
She offered meaningful feedback that helped me in elaboration after the conferences each
week. Dr. Brody never lectured for a long period of time; instead, asked Dr. Ekalavya
questions such as, what do you mean here, this idea is redundant, or write a
paragraph on each one of these aspects so the reader has a firm understanding of the sub
headings. Such feedback enabled Dr. Ekalavya to rethink, clarify, expand, and most
importantly the writing process. She also learned the various aspects of researching and
then revising and elaborating on the chapters based on the weekly discussions.

Vol. 6, Issue. V

245

October 2015

www.the-criterion.com The Criterion: An International Journal in English

ISSN: 0976-8165

Learning Experiences:
An enjoyable discovery for the candidate through these intellectual discussions
was that she was not afraid to share her revelations in the meetings because the chair was
encouraging and supportive. Dr. Ekalavya was enthusiastic about sharing what she had
found through additional research based on the previous meetings discussion each week.
She was also confident in expressing her ideas without any fear of exposure or becoming
self-conscious like she used to as a doctoral student when she heard other candidates
articulate their dissertation proposals confidently. We were then asked to observe
dissertation proposals while we were just beginning our Ph.D. program. That was
daunting for Dr. Ekalavya because she was nervous of the end product while she was just
getting immersed in the theories, methodologies, and procedures. However, with
consistent and periodic discussions, she became confident and comfortable to express her
ideas in the dissertation writing sessions. In the beginning Dr. Ekalavya relied on her
chair to guide her with all of the chapters several times, but with time and extensive
conversations, Dr. Ekalavya was able to think independently and later was able to
articulate her dissertation chapters confidently.
An example of how Dr. Brody helped scaffold the candidate was when Dr.
Ekalavya was struggling with the theme of identity formation in her study participants
because the data revealed identity negotiation and problems related to bicultural identity
construction. There was nothing significant in the literature about this topic with Asain
Indian people in the US. Dr. Brody suggested that Dr. Ekalavyaexplore the area of
identity formation in the Mexican American demographic because there was a body of
literature on that population, especially in Texas. Then, she encouraged the candidate to
apply the theoretical underpinnings to the Asian Indian participants narratives to
compare and contrast her findings. Dr. Ekalavya was thrilled to discover once again that
all of the stages that Mexican American students undergo with identity formation might
be applied to Asian Indian Americans as well. After all, people who share two different
worlds negotiate their place in society and this process of identity resolution is a universal
phenomenon.
Another absorbing experience for the candidate was when Dr. Sarvajnya
suggested that Dr. Ekalavya work with the professors in the Bicultural Bilingual (BBL)
department because of the nature of her data. Through this outreach, she could also form
community connections in the university. Asian Indian American participants wrote
about the funds of knowledge, community cultural wealth, and performing arts. Along
with these topics, some of the participants were negotiating their bicultural identity and
writing about languages and their role in identity formation. Dr. Ekalavyas relationship
with the BBL department paved way to add a new perspective to her dissertation, where
she explored the process of identity construction to find similarities within different
cultural groups. According to one of the committee members, This literature review was
not only extensive, it was organized in ways that supported the comprehension of the
readerI appreciated the way you presented the literature on writing
chronologicallyAdditionally, you identified the major constructs within each area,
leaving no stone unturned (committee member 3, 2014).
Dr. Brody was successful in scaffolding Dr. Ekalavya and was instrumental in
helping the candidate finish and later confidently defend her doctoral dissertation. Dr.
Brodys goal was to make sure that the candidate pass the defense and that we had

Vol. 6, Issue. V

246

October 2015

www.the-criterion.com The Criterion: An International Journal in English

ISSN: 0976-8165

covered all of the issues before we presented it to the committee. She once commented,
I want you to finish strong and later apply to the outstanding dissertation award because
youve done a wonderful job with writing the different chapters by diligently following
all of the instructions (2014). It was a tedious journey, but it was rewarding because Dr.
Ekalavya has become a better writer and an excellent researcher after the dissertation
writing process along with the excellent and devoted guidance of the dissertation chair.
Works Cited:
Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011).Academically adrift: Limited learning on college
campuses. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). Discourse in the novel: The dialogic imagination: Four essays.
Trans. Michael Holquist and Caryl Emerson. Austin: University of Texas Press, 259
422.
Graves, D.H. (1991). Build a literate classroom. Toronto, Canada: Irwin Publishing.
Lieblich, A., Tuval-Mashiach, R., & Zilber, T. (1998). Narrative analysis: Reading,
analysis, and interpretation. New Delhi, India: Sage Publications.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Baverly Hills, CA: Sage.
McCarthey, S. J., & Mckhize, D. (2013). Teachers' orientations towards writing
instruction. Journal of Writing Research 4(4), 1-33.
Mertens, D. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating
diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Sage.
Roll, I., Aleven, V., McLaren, B. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011). Improving students
help-seeking skills using metacognitive feedback in an intelligent tutoring system.
Learningand Instruction, 21, 267280. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.07.004
Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Achievement and social motivational influences.
In S.A. Karabenick (Ed.),Strategic help seeking: Implications for learning and
teaching(pp.117140). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Smith, M. K. (2003, 2009) Jean Lave, Etienne Wenger and communities of practice,
the encyclopedia of informal education,
www.infed.org/biblio/communities_of_practice.htm.
United States Census Bureau (2010). American community survey2010. Retrieved from
http://factfinders2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice:a
guide to managing knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Vol. 6, Issue. V

247

October 2015

www.the-criterion.com The Criterion: An International Journal in English

ISSN: 0976-8165

Appendix A:IRB Exempt Certificate

Appendix B
1. Explain how you teach research process to doctoral students.
Each student is different. Some are very independent and check in to show what they are
thinking about. Others meet more regularly. Some students are accomplished writers.
Others could use the help of a good editor.
By the time a doctoral student is working on their dissertation, they have taken a number
of research courses and have a good background on how to conduct research. The
dissertation is the first time though that the students are researching their own important
story.

Vol. 6, Issue. V

248

October 2015

www.the-criterion.com The Criterion: An International Journal in English

ISSN: 0976-8165

I support each student through the writing workshop where I question what Ive read and
ask for clarification and elaboration. Each students process is unique.
2. How did you help Dr. Ekalavya learn qualitative research although she took
classes on that topic?
In Dr. Ekalavyas case, she had a strong background in research, but was not confident
about what she was doing. We went over her analysis each week, I shared my insights
and questions, and then she went back to her independent work for the rest of the week.
3. What is your understanding of the doctoral candidates proficiency with
conducing a study when she began her dissertation writing?
She was quite knowledgeable about qualitative research. She lacked the confidence
though that comes as a more experienced researcher.
4. Did you notice any problems with the candidates writing based on her schooling
both in India and the US.
Yes. She used the British spelling of words and I was constantly editing that out. She
also had troubles with articles. An, a, the were sometimes missing in her sentences.
5. What changes did you notice in the candidates writing style as the dissertation
was completed?
Ive had some doctoral students who were fluent writers and though the drafts of the
dissertation changed as they analyzed the data and made meaning of the data, the quality
of the writing remained at a high level. In Dr. Ekalavyas case, her writing changed a
great deal over the course of the dissertation. She began with shorter sentences and
general observations about the data. She began to become more fluent after several
drafts. By the time we were at the end of the dissertation, her writing style was very
fluent and professional.
6. List and explain the strategies that you think may have helped the candidate in
writing her dissertation.
The writing workshop was probably the biggest factor in her writing growth. Dr, E. was
very organized, hard-working, and had great follow-through. We would generally meet
every week for two hours to go over her latest draft. We would read the draft out loud to
see how it sounded and if it made sense. She would show me the sections that she
wanted help on and we would read them together and I would ask her questions. Dr. E
took notes and would arrive the next week with the revised draft of the section we had
worked on.
7. Have you noticed any differences in the way this candidate incorporates revisions
after the debriefing sessions with you while she was writing her dissertation.
The biggest difference was how she expanded her ideas from a sentence to a few pages.
She added the details that she had in her head, but which her readers didnt know. It was
the follow through that moved her draft through revisions that led to clarity.
8. What encouraged you to appreciate the candidates topic choice?

Vol. 6, Issue. V

249

October 2015

www.the-criterion.com The Criterion: An International Journal in English

ISSN: 0976-8165

I always try to support each doctoral student in their desired topic for their dissertation.
The dissertation is a long process and the candidate needs to be in love with their topic to
be able to sustain the work that goes into a dissertation. I have had students write on a
wide variety of literacy topics.
Dr. Es study was particularly interesting to me. Although I am not an Asian Indian
American, I come from a minority background as a Jewish American and I identify as an
outsider. I understood at a deep level the feeling expressed by many of the students in the
study; the difficulty of being/living in two cultures.
9. How cooperative was the candidate with completion ofincluding revisions of
chapters several times?
Dr. E. was successful in the writing of her dissertation for several reasons that I observed.
First of all, she was a very hard worker. She had the discipline and the routine
established so that she could continue her progress from week to week. Secondly, she
had a positive attitude and didnt appear to let the feedback set her back. Instead, she
took it as a challenge to grow and improve. Third, her topic was one that was important
both to her and to education in general. Shes succeeded in what is not that easyto
contribute new knowledge to the field and to identify a new area of research.

Vol. 6, Issue. V

250

October 2015