Student Response Paper

Educationally wise our community, life experiences and past professor’s we have come in contact with have played a significant role in our development as doctoral students we are becoming today. As we being to reflect on what we read we will begin the process of higher level thinking. The sole purpose of this paper is to examine, compare, and synthesize themes of three empirical articles. The three articles compared were as follows: article one by Weidman, & Stein (2003) titled “Socialization of doctoral students to the academic norms was a study.” Article two by Baker & Lattuca (2010) titled “Developmental networks and learning toward an interdisciplinary perspective on identity development”looked at the bond between theories. Article three Visser, Visser & Schlosser (2003) titled “Critical thinking distance education and traditional education” acknowledged the benefits by relating both educational settings. In comparison to all three articles were written with a different purpose in mind, with all three connecting to the same theme, “How does faculty play a role in the development of the doctoral student?” There were similarities found in the subject addressed. However, it was also apparent that there were differences in each article.

My passion towards working with students every day has led me to the decision of pursuing a doctoral degree in Student Affairs in Higher Education at Miami University. I have chosen this program to prepare myself for a future role as a professor or a senior level college administrator. This program will allow me to become more proficient within the students’ educational experience and therefore better engage students in active learning.

The successful completion of the doctoral program requires one to make significant sacrifices and accommodations. Majority of the doctoral students are usually motivated and eager to complete their program as soon as possible. However, many students often enroll for doctoral programs without a complete understanding of the heavy demands of such a program. The doctoral program is unique and bears little resemblance to many previous degree courses and so without the necessary accommodations one can find completing it an uphill task. Each student brings to the program his/her own set of academic strengths and weaknesses (Wisdom, & Leavitt, 2015). The attitude and abilities of each and every doctoral student is unique and so is their management of the program. Therefore, the most important ingredient to doctoral success is the capability to leverage such inherent strengths and find effective ways

Another characteristic of doctoral identity for successful scholars is the intellectual component formed through the building of academic relationships. Throughout the doctoral journey, beginning scholars consult with peers, professors, and research

Pivotal events and opportunities led me toward the education field. Shultz (2011) states that people have a deep need to connect on a human level. The ability to be vulnerable, transparent, show weakness, and to demonstrate authenticity, helps students to trust and connect on a deeper level. The process of authenticity requires development over a lifetime (Northouse, 2016). Findings through the questionnaires indicate colleagues and students see the characteristics of a leader in me. In the current position as an Assistant-Director for Advising, communication, social skills, and empathy are essential. While these qualities are evident and help to meet the goals of the university and student, to

The significance of relationships, networking and family support are integral component in doctoral learner’s lives. There is evidence to support that the diverse interweaving of learner connections, is critical. Social connections are an important aspect of how doctoral students progress from dependent to independent researcher (Baker and Pifer, 2011). The beginning of learning in doctoral education involves acclimation to the social culture of the institution, interaction with faculty advisors, mentors, peers, and family support, require a village network to aid learners in establishing a solid foundation to convert from dependent to independent scholar (Baker and Pifer, 2011; Weidman and Stein, 2003). In addition, the dissertation process,

To encourage advisors to establish a close relationship with students, Yarbrough (2002) suggests an engagement model approach to develop a close relationship between the student advisee and the academic advisor. The five characteristics of the model are: 1) advisors acknowledge individual academic standards, (e.g. recognizing students’ abilities), 2) advisors provide catalog information (e.g. allowing students to understand academic requirements), 3) advisors encourage students to recognize their strengths and weaknesses ( e.g. determining what classes to take according to their abilities), 4) students explore their academic interest (e.g. researching about undergraduate programs), and 5) students make it a priority to complete their program successfully (Yarbrough, 2002). Yarbrough’s model fulfills that academic advisors can model a positive relationship with their student advisees. Vianden and Barlow (2015) claim that a strong interpersonal relationship influences students’ ability to succeed in their college academic career. As a result, the academic advisor has the ability to encourage and motivate students to succeed in their academic and career

Article 2 explores the developmental aspects of the doctoral learner. It examines how the social interactions with peers and faculty can have an effect on success.

Many studies have been conducted that research the doctoral journey and what should be accomplished throughout the program- both by the student and by the institution. This paper presents a review of three empirical studies on the topics related to doctoral identity including: student identity and program development to ensure students are prepared for life after the program as either and educator or an expert in the field of his or her choice.

A doctoral program is riddled with many rules, regulations, and practices that have a direct impact upon this trio, that which they are working on, and their final products. This will promote efficiency and effectiveness in the program because when properly implemented, everyone involved will have absolute trust in one another. Therefore, the student knows that it is his responsibility to be current in his completion of the coursework, and if he has any questions, to try to get the answers in a timely manner. Faculty members must be teachers; they have to have the knowledge and skills necessary to enhance learning across the spectrum that is the diversity of the individual needs of the student body such as disabilities, language, culture, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. University staff members are also important components of the process, because they are the glue that binds the students and faculty to the school. It makes no difference if it is a student advisor, an employee in the bookstore, someone providing technical support, or an individual working in the financial aid office; all staff members have important roles to play because they are the bridge that spans the chasm between the student and the

This paper deals with my personal assessment of how I plan on successfully completing my doctoral degree. I have identified some obstacles that could affect my successful completion. I also describe my strengths, and define the importance of self-sufficiency as well as personal reliance. I lay out how I will reach my personal goals and overcome my personal articles. I will finally discuss the areas where I might need some additional coaching.

The aim is the concern about doctoral student not fully prepared for reality as these affect their effectiveness in the graduate program which raises concern on improving the program most especially on how to develop their academic professional identity. (Austin and McDaniels 2006) argues in their finding that graduate education is a socialization experience that engages 'perspective faculty in thinking about the role and responsibilities they will assume, and the traditions in which they will participate. This is a true statement because of the knowledge they will acquire during the program and dedication towards the achievement of the program along with the level of their critical thinking and this is the point where socialization differentiates itself in forms of values, norms and ethics therefore, the bottom-line is about doctoral student developing self professionalism and acquiring his/her own knowledge, experience and norms in his field of expertise to assume his/her own scholarly

One does not simply become a doctoral student overnight. It takes time, dedication, focus, and hard work to maintain the level of academic rigor and excellence that a doctoral program demands. Prior to my experiences in my externship course, I would say that I had not quite fully embraced all that being a doctoral student had to offer, specifically in terms of the advantages it affords when seeking out experts in my area of interest. Before completing my externship, I felt that I had done an admirable job of fleshing out my research topic, spending time in other courses throughout my program to consider what I was interested in pursuing as my dissertation topic, and making

Furthermore, I not only took delight in my frequent interactions and discussions with my professors about the research, but also thoroughly enjoyed working on the materials without daily supervision. This experience has been very crucial in developing my passion for academic research and I want to further pursue this interest by obtaining a Ph.D. degree in Management.

Even a casual reading of the extensive literature on student development in higher education can create confusion and perplexity. One finds not only that the problems being studied are highly diverse but also that investigators who claim to be studying the same problem frequently do not look at the same variables or employ the same methodologies. And even when they are investigating the same variables, different investigators may use completely different terms to describe and discuss these variables. My own interest in