Download pdf - Using Wikis to Collaboratively Prepare for Qualifying Examinations:

Volume 54, Number 1 TechTrends • January/February 2010 25

AbstractThis article focuses on the experiences of

seven Ph.D. students implementing a wiki to col-laboratively prepare for qualifying examinations in the educational technology program at a large southeastern university. Concomitant study for such a rigorous examination is rare, and the tri-als and tribulations of the group are described in detail. Specific guidelines highlighting effec-tive preparation options for qualifying exams are often elusive, and, as such, this article explores current research related to collaborative prepa-ration and mentoring, as well as the qualifying examination process in total, in hopes of add-ing to the scientific body of knowledge related to these subjects. It also offers best practice strate-gies, suggests possible technology tips regarding wiki implementation, and seeks to better scaffold future scholars and/or mentors seeking to ef-fectively participate in or plan for collaborative qualifying examination preparation.

Keywords: collaboration, graduate educa-tion, qualifying exam, Web 2.0, wiki(s)

The mere mention of the term “qualifying examination” (also referred to as qualifying ex-ams or quals) intimidates even the most confi-dent graduate students. The process is stressful and requirements are often vague or elusive. In some cases the exam creates so much anxiety that students delay its completion or even avoid it all together and remain ABD (All But Disserta-tion). In an effort to mitigate anxiety and demys-tify the process, the educational technology (ed tech) program at the University of Florida initi-ated a pair of two, semester-long seminar courses

in which doctoral students participated in the qualifying examination process collabora-tively under the direction and guidance of key program personnel. Acting as facilitators and guides, these faculty members offered insight into the professional duties students can expect to encounter in academia and/or the business world.

The collaborative ef-fort to collect, synthesize, and share key knowledge in the field of educational technology was a major component of the seminar. The group selected a wiki as the most effective and efficient tool to meet this objective for three reasons. First, the wiki served as a living document to which changes could be tracked through Really Simple Syndication (RSS). This is a process by which participants subscribe to the wiki and receive email notification when another member of the group posts a change or makes a revision. Second, the option to create multiple pages al-lowed for better organization of general content as well as individual pages for each seminarian to record content relative to his or her specific field of study. This helped bridge the knowl-edge gaps between participants and afforded insights and connections within the broader field of educational technology that might not have been made otherwise. Third, it was im-portant to the group that research and data collection be conducted in an open forum in

Using Wikis to Collaboratively Prepare for Qualifying Examinations:An Example of Implementation inan Advanced Graduate ProgramBy Joseph C. DiPietro, Wendy Drexler, Kathryn Kennedy, Vasa Buraphadeja,Feng Liu, and Kara Dawson

“The students…were encouraged to see the qualifying exam as a collaborative effort, especially to alleviate the feeling of ‘going it alone.’”

26 TechTrends • January/February 2010 Volume 54, Number 1

which colleagues and other scholars, students, and those interested in educational technology could benefit from the work and provide feed-back as necessary.

This article presents an overview of the qualifying examination and emerging alter-native models as support for the collaborative format of a doctoral seminar. It will further ex-plain the use of a wiki to facilitate increased col-laboration and organized preparation for both the qualifying exam and dissertation process.

An Overview of QualifyingExaminations

A source of stress for graduate students on a global scale, qualifying examinations are an intimidating step in the process of at-taining advanced graduate degrees, and past studies have shed light on reasons these fears exist. Described as a kind of ‘rite of passage’ (Estrem & Lucas, 2003; Hadjioannou, Shelton, & Dhanarattigannon, 2007), the comprehen-sive examination, or qualifying examination, allows graduate students to feel accomplished and knowledgeable in their discipline. Though

some argue it is one of the causes for an increase in the number of years it takes for students to graduate. Ac-cording to a study published by the National Science Foundation (2006), the av-erage doctoral student takes 8.2 years to graduate re-gardless of discipline while graduate students focusing on education average about 13 years to complete their programs; Schmidt (2008) reports that women and minorities take even longer to complete their degrees than do White males.

While there may be spurious arguments for graduate students taking longer to graduate (e.g. funding issues, teaching commitments, competitive job market, lack of effective

advising, (see Berger, 2007), personal charac-teristics, life situations, and difficulty meeting advisor expectations (see D’Andrea, 2002)), fear of the qualifying exam was identified by the University of Florida educational technol-ogy department as a significant concern within this particular program. Identifying a research

focus is one aspect of the qualifying exam that seems to contribute to high levels of anxiety. An inability to organize, plan, and identify personal areas of interest causes some students to pro-crastinate and perpetuates stress.

Categorized as a “self-sabotaging” behavior by Kearns, Gardiner, and Marshall (2008), pro-crastination, along with over commitment and perfectionism (p. 79) should be behaviors that Ph.D. programs help students reduce. In order to alleviate their students’ self-sabotaging behav-iors, the University of Florida educational tech-nology program incorporated a two semester seminar to provide a framework for qualifying exam preparation. The students in the seminar were encouraged to see the qualifying exam as a collaborative effort, especially to alleviate the feeling of ‘going it alone.’ Hadjioannou, Shelton, and Dhanarattigannon (2007) described the ini-tial processes of the doctoral program as “peril-ous;” however, because the group in this study worked closely with their advisor, they were able to navigate the obstacles and accomplish their shared goals of graduating with Ph.D. degrees. Lovitts (2005) affirms that doctoral programs should make their expectations for the program explicit in hopes of best meeting the diverse needs of graduate students. Krueger and Peek (2006) urge that the Ph.D. program be designed to allow for the existence and fostering of three intricate processes: (1) conversation, where stu-dents have a say as to how their experiences transpire; (2) reflection, where students can have a personal dialogue with themselves about the experience; and (3) interaction, where a com-munity of students have a collective dialogue about their experiences.

Models of Qualifying Examinations

A variety of qualifying examination formats have been used by different schools to achieve ad-equate student preparation. As one might expect, each model has advantages and disadvantages contingent upon subjective perceptions. Since qualifying examinations are such a major step in the process of attaining an advanced degree, nu-merous studies have been conducted in hopes of maximizing the efficacy of student preparation. The Carnegie Foundation, a leader in this area of research, created a program called the “Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate” that focuses on help-ing U.S. doctoral-granting institutions restructure their programs in order to better prepare Ph.D. candidates for life after graduation (2008a).

Some of the programs involved in the Carnegie effort (Carnegie Initiative, 2008b)

“Many academicinstitutions are

calling for explorationof their respective

Ph.D. programs inan effort to outline

best practicesfor maximizing

student preparationfor qualifying

examinations andsuccessful completion

of Ph.D. degrees.”


have eliminated the exam altogether replacing it with a more project-based approach. One such school is Arizona State University’s (ASU) special education program. In order to advance to doctoral candidacy, the students in this pro-gram need to complete four items including: (1) a literature review, (2) a single-authored article, (3) a co-authored article, and (4) a grant pro-posal. The work on these items begins during the second semester of the first year students enter the program. Dr. Rutherford, a professor at ASU’s special education program, emphasizes that this approach to the qualifying process pre-pares his students to become familiar with the life they will lead as academics (Carnegie Ini-tiative, 2008b). The process is viewed as a more efficient expenditure of students’ time allowing for more resources to be devoted to building of respective vitae.

The University of Michigan School of Edu-cation used the Carnegie Initiative (2008b) to concentrate on creating a cohesive, intellectual community for their doctoral students. They did this using a cohort-based approach to the first-year curriculum plan where students took four required courses together. They also considered incorporating a first-year seminar where all spe-cializations would be placed together in hopes of encouraging cross-disciplinary research among the school’s Ph.D. students. One of the interest-ing lessons learned by the program was the need to include the opinions of their students during the modification of the programs. In the future, they stated that they planned to incorporate stu-dent input in their decision-making processes regarding program reform.

Though these alternative formats were ac-knowledged by some academic institutions for their authenticity, the established theories un-derlying them are still not accepted by many graduate schools (Estrem & Lucas, 2003). Con-sequently, the majority of Ph.D. programs still adopt the comprehensive examination that in-cludes both written and oral sections serving as students’ qualifying assessments. As Kearns, Gardiner, and Marshall (2008) stated, alterna-tive examinations such as portfolios and field work, reduce students’ stress during their stud-ies, enhance their ability to conduct academic work, and cut down the overall time needed to finish their Ph.Ds.

Many academic institutions are calling for exploration of their respective Ph.D. pro-grams in an effort to outline best practices for maximizing student preparation for qualify-ing examinationss and successful completion of Ph.D. degrees. Andrea (2002) emphasized the important role structure plays in the pro-

cess of advanced degree completion in col-leges of education. Furthermore, she stated that professors should play a significant part in helping students structure this process, and subsequently, students should stick to it. In ad-dition, as Hartnett and Katz (1977) argued, in the graduate students’ eyes, their relationships with the professors are extremely important in improving the overall quality of student life. Emilsson and Johns-son (2007) described how the role of Ph.D. students’ supervisors has changed since the 1900s, evolving from the professor-cen-tered lectures of the past to more modern graduate seminars where students play much more active roles. They also empha-sized how Ph.D. students and their problems should be the focus during the su-pervisory process that ex-emplifies the philosophy and importance of stu-dent-centered learning.

Hadjioannou et al. (2007) presented a study of how four doctoral students in the education program at the University of Florida collabo-rated under the guidance of one faculty mem-ber to get through their doctoral programs. In this study, the researchers emphasized the im-portance of the dynamic and strong relation-ships among the five members that were estab-lished through their weekly meetings as well as informal interactions. Peer sharing and sup-port were adopted by this group and benefited the members academically as they worked to present at professional conferences, published scholarly works, improved writing skills, ap-plied and received much-needed financial aid, gained experience in balancing different roles within their respective lives, and provided emotional support when needed. This student-led support group that created “strong peer and mentor/mentee relations” played a critical role in improving the quality of doctoral students’ experiences while enhancing their develop-ment into successful scholars (Hadjioannou et al., 2007, p. 16).

The University of Florida educational technology program highlighted in this article takes a phased approach to qualifying exams that includes a written and oral component as well as deeper exploration into the field of in-dividual expertise. The written component of the qualifying exam may be traditional, alter-

“… wikis can be le-gitimate research re-sources, as long as the content is accurate; the content of a wiki can be maintained adequately in terms of accuracy by way of its users or collaborators.”


native, or some combination of these two mod-els dependent upon committee approval. Exam-ples of alternative written options are focused literature reviews, scholarly articles, or special research projects where students are expected to focus more deeply on individual areas of ex-pertise. This includes detailed knowledge of key contributors in the field, reviews of pertinent literature, and establishing theoretical frame-works aligning with their work in the field. The oral exam incorporates questions based on foun-dational and specialty knowledge in the broader context of educational technology. Since founda-tional knowledge of the field is the same for ev-eryone, participants used a wiki to organize this content and to facilitate collaborative preparation for the oral portion of qualifying examinations. In addition, each member created an individual wiki page that served as a constantly evolving study guide for the specialty portion of oral ex-aminations.

WikisBell (2008) describes wikis as online collab-

orative, project managing areas that can be used in a myriad of work places. She also emphasizes that wikis can be legitimate research resources, as long as the content is accurate; the content of a wiki can be maintained adequately in terms of accuracy by way of its users or collaborators. Dye (2007) further explains that wikis allow ev-eryone to contribute, but the owner of the wiki can determine who has editing privileges help-ing to keep the accuracy of the content intact. Wikis are especially conducive to group work. The WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) editing feature and automatic menu con-struction for navigation make wikis easy to use. Revision histories are archived automatically and Really Simple Syndication (RSS) allows edi-tors and visitors to subscribe to content changes and receive an email every time an update is submitted.

Hadjioannou, Shelton, and Dhanarattigan-non (2007) urge that in a group setting, where graduate students are working together and have a faculty member or members supervising, the graduate students should have some if not most control over the functions of the group. In addition they mention the importance for ev-eryone to take the necessary time to contribute to the community including timely peer review feedback and regular attendance to scheduled meetings. This sense of community helped these researchers combat loneliness, exhaustion, vul-nerability, and inexperience.

Given the skill sets, dispositions, and at-titudes graduate students possess towards the

completion of their degrees (Gardner, Hayes, & Neider, 2006) are more important than any lev-el of technological savvy, wikis provide a strong framework for online collaboration. A wiki was selected for this project over other means of on-line collaboration because it allowed for transpar-ent collaboration in an open environment which others could view and provide feedback. This could not be accomplished effectively via email, discussion forums, or general websites. Tracking discussion via email is cumbersome and confus-ing. Discussion forums do not provide the means to share large amounts of content in an organized manner for others to see. A website is accessible to outsiders, but does not allow for easy editing or multiple contributors.

Gardner, Hayes, and Neider (2006) looked at organizational socialization in an academic com-munity as the most important step for Ph.D. stu-dents to undertake in order to best understand how to develop the most effective mindset to aid in completion of the doctoral degree. Lesko, Sim-mons, Quarshie, and Newton (2008) describe how students participating in a doctoral seminar were able to shed light on and work to correct their misinformed knowledge and offer ideas for progress towards a more cohesive community of learning; such communities can be well served through collaborative technologies like wikis.

ImplementationFrom inception, the instructor established a

clear-cut framework for helping students and a series of major goals for which all students would be held accountable. The final product was the drafting of qualifying examination protocols, which confirmed that the students’ preparation regarding the bureaucratic elements of the pro-cess were complete. The course syllabus for this seminar was a vital document in terms of ensur-ing group success. Structured as a sequential and topical framework for class meetings, this docu-ment outlined general topics of discussion, study, and presentation on a week-to-week basis.

An interesting series of activities involved the researching and sharing of current literature focused on different elements of the Ph.D. pro-cess and qualifying examination structure. Myr-iad elements, such as “preparing for a career in academia,” “examining alternative paradigms for qualifying exams,” “investigating contemporary issues in doctoral education,” and others were se-lected by the seminar advisor. Students scoured various research databases and pooled relevant resources. Articles were explored, shared, and then discussed in a whole group setting. In total, seven students took part in the preparation semi-nar. Each student, professing a common interest


in the field of educational technology, had distinct areas of study while shar-ing an overarching expertise.

The seminar spanned two 16-week semesters with the class meet-ing weekly for the first five weeks. This provided time for the seminar leader to evaluate collective strengths as well as to assess group weaknesses. Based on analysis of class demographics and overall vision for the course, the in-structor presented the option of cre-ating a course-related content wiki to the group. The content was placed at PBwiki (www.pbwiki.com), and the majority of course discussion and ef-fort centered on development of this tool and modifications in order to best meet group needs. Given the congru-ent, overarching area of graduate study for all students in this seminar, a wiki proved to be the most logical tool for collaboration and group preparation.

PBwiki was selected because most students in the class were already fa-miliar with this Web 2.0 application, and it offers ad-free content creation for users in educational settings. A number of other wiki programs are available that would have served the same purpose just as effectively. Group members possessed varying degrees of technical savvy concerning issues with website development and programming, but all were equally familiar with the simplicity of wiki manipulation and best practices of instructional design and information architecture. The intuitive interface of PBwiki provided equal opportunities for all participants to engage in the creation, editing, and showcasing of information.

The course wiki served a variety of functions. A visual representation of both shared and individual knowl-edge synthesis was afforded through working in this collaborative envi-ronment. Seven unique individuals were able to successfully collaborate on critical content for their respec-tive qualifying examinations. Topics pertinent to educational technology included: Theories, Notable People, Concepts, Competencies, Associa-tions, Journals, Literature on Quali-fying Exams, Dissertations, and Job Search Information. In addition, each

Figure 1: A snapshot of the main wiki page. All underlined terms link to respective content in greater detail and hierarchical branched topics allow users to start with small concepts and then expand their knowledge as they navigate through the site at their own pace.

Figure 2: An example of content available under the “Theories” section. Each link provides users with more relevant information and web-based links for topic exploration.


seminar participant prepared a personal page fo-cused on her area of expertise.

This gestalt process provided for the creation of a content repository in respect to area-specific content, leaders in the field, and literature. Par-ticipants created foundations on which respec-tive dissertations could be built, while concomi-tantly scaffolding peers along the way. Navigat-ing through information and forming individual study guides for respective qualifying examina-tions was no easy task, but the wiki took shape thanks to individual effort and continued outside input. The wiki was kept private for editing but public for viewing and professors and colleagues were invited to review the content and encour-aged to make suggestions for improvement throughout the development of the wiki. Chang-es made throughout wiki development were not accomplished simultaneously. Tracing wiki site history was possible because, similar to other wiki applications, PBwiki provides page history functions. This allows users to view previous ver-sions and compare changes made between any two revisions. The group started with large ideas and then refined them, focusing more tightly on specific, relevant information.

ReflectionsA focus group was conducted at the end of

the first semester of the qualifying seminar to reflect upon the positive and negative aspects of the course and to discuss suggestions for future improvement. A number of overarching themes emerged, and all students agreed that the semi-

nar accelerated completion of milestones in preparation for qualifying exams. Group collab-oration, collegial support, and authentic learning opportunities were identified as key contributing factors to seminar success. While students had considerable input regarding topics and course content, many felt that future participants would benefit from better-defined objectives and more structure implemented throughout the course.

Collaboration and Collegial SupportGroup collaboration and collegial support

benefited participants in a number of ways. Col-laboration on the wiki, article discussions, and class activities helped build a professional bond between the students and a feeling of, “we’re all in this together.” Hearing about the experiences and challenges of fellow Ph.D. students calmed nerves and reinforced individual drive toward a common goal. As one participant stated, “Shar-ing ideas with classmates helps me see the same thing from a different perspective and integrate their thinking into my own.”

Another benefit was the personal affirmation that came from sharing research topics and ideas. Another participant stated, “I was able to demon-strate that what I’m interested in has educational viability. I focused my information to show the computer science department that this is what I’m doing. I feel better about what I do. In the past, I felt that others didn’t get what I’m doing.” There was also an element of friendly competi-tion among colleagues that further motivated the group. One participant stated “Seeing others in a similar situation is more motivating. I can move along with peers. It adds a layer of accountability. I’m accountable to the instructor and my peers, so I don’t get behind.” At the same time, this model added some level of stress. A member of the wiki group stated, “I realize how far behind I am, espe-cially compared to everyone else’s progress.”

Authentic LearningAuthentic learning opportunities better po-

sitioned the students for future dissertation work and career goals. This is reflected in a statement made by a wiki group member:

I’ve been looking at where I’m defi-cient. These activities helped me figure out what I needed to work on. I had to put together a CV and decide on what type of job I’m looking for. It focused my effort.

Some of the activities that students chose to represent the authentic learning assignment included conference or interview presentations and qualifying and research plans. Nearly all participants dealt with some level of self-doubt

Figure 3: A sample screenshot from a participant’s personal research wiki page. The blocks describe areas of expertise held by the participant and graphically outline important topics of study for this individual’s qualifying examination preparation.


during the course of the Ph.D. program. The au-thentic learning assignments further facilitated reflection and soul searching. One participant stated:

I had the realization of how far I have to go and whether I still want to go. I was believing people when they told me I was almost done, but the self direct-ed aspect of this is long term. You have to decide whether you really want to do it. Sitting through another student’s de-fense showed that even he had personal doubts. Knowing that was helpful.

Another participant shared, …with self-doubt, felt a lot in the

middle of the semester, the class kept me in line. Talking to Dr. Dawson outside of class helped, too. I have the issue of not having any prior experience with teach-ing kids, not having that background and feeling competent to teach teachers who will be teaching kids. It was also a struggle getting my head around the dis-sertation. This experience helped me fo-cus my personal intentions, to work with pre-service teachers to help them work with the students.”

So much time is spent in a Ph.D. program working with the theoretical and philosophical aspects of educational technology. Taking time to consider the practical ramifications gave stu-dents better focus and confidence.

SuggestionsParticipants suggested a number of enhance-

ments to consider for future qualifying seminars regardless of program content. Flexibility is ben-eficial, but deadlines ensure that milestones are met. The wiki created for this inquiry will prove useful to those students new to educational tech-nology as its breadth of content is considerable, but this same logic would apply to any field of academia. In addition, new students will be ex-posed to additional research and will be able to subsequently add to this resource, making it a wealth of resources for educational technology/instructional science students worldwide.

It is the hope of the authors that future groups of like-minded graduate students from any and all academic disciplines will benefit from the provision of this framework, especially con-sidering that the wikis’ creation process helped to calm the nerves of the participants considerably. Wikis could be even be used for cross-univer-sity examination preparation in congruent fields in order to expose students to new perspectives

into their specific fields of discipline. This could also afford students the opportunity to hear from other leaders in the field and allow students to establish connections that may well last throughout their professional careers.

Wiki use should not be limited to educa-tional technology students. The technology is the simple part of the equation, and students from every discipline can take advantage of the col-laborative potential of this tool. Multimedia compo-nents such as audio pod-casts, video, and student projects would increase the benefit to subsequent visitors, and social net-working capabilities would allow for collaboration within or beyond the core group. Students could even create podcasts to “practice” oral exams and share them with others to elicit feedback and critiques. The format of a wiki is easily tweaked to meet the unique needs of varied academic departments.

ConclusionsThe general consensus of participants in

this inquiry confirmed that the qualifying seminar and implementation of a wiki was an asset to the educational technology program of study. A culture of sharing must be fostered and supported by the instructor and partici-pants as the pursuit of a Ph.D. can often be-come a competitive endeavor. The preparation seminar is meant to be a supportive environ-ment through which students learn from each other and where criticism is useful if presented in a respectful way; success of any course is highly correlative to group dynamics. While there is no recipe for the perfect balance, the academic department, instructor, and course participants must all come to the table with an attitude of transparency and collegiality.

The experience described in this piece was deemed useful by all participants as evidenced through focus group data. In their eyes, despite the wikis incorporation into a technology-re-lated field, any field of study could benefit from wiki implementation. Study participants admit that each discipline may be different in the ways in which they prepare their students for the comprehensive exam and that this frame-work should not considered a one-size-fits-all panacea. However, a wiki may serve as an

“Participants created foundations on which respective disserta-tions could be built, while concomitantly scaffolding peers along the way.”


effective medium for collaborative qualifying examination preparation given multiple partici-pants with similar research backgrounds and the shared vision of successful program completion.

Joseph C. DiPietro is a doctoral fellow and candidate in the School of Teaching and Learning at the University of Florida. His research interests include exploring self-representation and bias in online environments and their applications to educational games and simulations. Prior to initiating his doctoral studies, Joseph worked as a public school teacher, countywide technology coordinator, and college instructor affording a diverse perspective of K-20 education. He has earned B.A.E. and M.Ed. degrees from the University of Florida.

Wendy Drexler holds an Ed.S. in Educational Technology and is currently a doctoral candidate in the School of Teach-ing and Learning at the University of Florida. Her research interests include collaborative blogging, integrating technol-ogy with service learning, and networked learning. She is an instructional technologist at Shorecrest Preparatory School in St. Petersburg, a Florida Master Digital Educator, and a National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS) Teacher of the Future.

Kathryn Kennedy is an Alumni Fellow, currently in her second year of doctoral studies at the University of Florida’s School of Teaching and Learning. She is concentrating in ed-ucational technology with research interests in teacher edu-cation as it pertains to both pre-service and in-service teach-ers’ professional development, with special interest in K-12 virtual schooling. She provides technology integration work-shops to individuals, schools, and school districts. She teaches and mentors undergraduate- and graduate-level pre-service teachers regarding the meaningful integration of technology into K-12 curriculum. She holds a B.A. in English special-izing in adolescent literature from the University of Florida and an M.S. in Library and Information Sciences from the Florida State University.

Vasa Buraphadeja is a doctoral student in the School of Teaching and Learning at the University of Florida. His re-search agenda focuses on ubiquitous computing in school and higher education, assessing quality in asynchronous online education, and computer games in education. He has been teaching in business school at an international univer-sity in Thailand since 2001 and will resume his career after the completion of his degree.

Kara Dawson is an Associate Professor of Educational Tech-nology in the School of Teaching and Learning at the Uni-versity of Florida (UF). She serves as Program Coordinator for the face-to-face and online programs there. Her research relates to investigating innovative ways in which technology supports teaching and learning processes.

Feng Liu is a doctoral fellow in the Educational Technology program at the University of Florida’s College of Education. His current research interests include using gaming to help gain knowledge, change attitude and motivation in areas such as science education, second language acquisition, ex-amining the effectiveness of various technologies on online

education, investigating the benefits of technology for ad-dressing multicultural awareness in online learning environ-ments. He holds a M.Ed. in Educational Technology.

References

Bell, S. (2008). Wikis as legitimate research sources. On-line, 32(6), 34-37.

Berger, J. (2007, October 3). Exploring ways to shorten the ascent to a Ph.D. The New York Times.

Carnegie Foundation. (2008a). Carnegie initiative on the doctorate overview. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/programs/index.asp?key=29

Carnegie Foundation. (2008b). Carnegie initiative on the doctorate - education. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from http://gallery.carnegiefoundation.org/cid/cid/education.html

D’Andrea, L. (2002). Obstacles to completion of the doctoral degree in colleges of education: The professors’ per-spective. Educational Research Quarterly, 25(3), 42.

Dye, J. (2007). Collaboration 2.0: Make the web your workspace. EContent, 30(1), 32-36.

Emilsson, U., & Johnsson, E. (2007). Supervision of super-visors: On developing supervision in postgraduate education. Higher Education Research & Develop-ment, 26(2), 163-179.

Estrem, H., & Lucas, B. (2003). Embedded traditions, un-even reform: the place of the comprehensive exam in composition and rhetoric Ph.D. programs. Rhetoric Review, 22(4), 396-416.

Gardner, S., Hayes, M., & Neider, X. (2007). The disposi-tions and skills of a Ph.D. in education: Perspectives of faculty and graduate students in one college of educa-tion. Innovative Higher Education, 31(5), 287-299.

Hadjioannou, X., Shelton, N., Fu, D., & Dhanarattigannon, J. (2007). The road to a doctoral degree: Co-travelers through a perilous passage. College Student Journal, 41(1), 160-177.

Hartnett, R. & Katz, J. (1977). The education of graduate students. The Journal of Higher Education, 48, 646-664.

Kearns, H., Gardiner, M., & Marshall, K. (2008). Innova-tion in Ph.D. completion: The hardy shall succeed (and be happy!). Higher Education Research & Devel-opment, 27(1), 77-89.

Krueger, P. M., & Peek, L. A. (2006). Figuring it out: A conversation about how to complete your Ph.D. Col-lege Student Journal, 40(1), 149.

Lesko, N., Simmons, J.A., Quarshie, A., and Newton, N. (2008). The pedagogy of monsters: Scary disturbanc-es in a doctoral research preparation course. Teachers College Record, 110(8), 1541-1573.

Lovitts, B. (2005). How to grade a dissertation. Academe, 91(6), 18-23.

National Science Foundation. (2006). SRS time to degree of U.S. research doctorate recipients. Retrieved December 7, 2008, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf06312/

Schmidt, P. (2008, September 19). Longer road to Ph.D.s for women and minority members. Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(4), A10.