Doctoral Student Experience (DSE) Student Handbook Version ... · Dissertation course DIS9904A –...

1

Doctoral Student Experience (DSE)

Student Handbook

Version 1.0: October 2016

© Northcentral University

2

DSE Student Handbook

Table of Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4

Section 1: The Dissertation Process ................................................................................ 5

1.1 Dissertation Courses and Committees ................................................................... 6

1.2 Dissertation Course Overview ................................................................................ 6

1.3 Dissertation Course Sequence ............................................................................... 8

1.4 Dissertation Template ............................................................................................ 9

1.5 DSE Dissertation Grading .................................................................................... 10

1.5.1 on Rubric .......................................................................................................... 10

1.5.2 ing Using the Dissertation Rubric ...................................................................... 11

1.5.3 Progression Criteria .......................................................................................... 11

1.5.4 sequences for Failing to Submit Weekly Assignments ...................................... 12

1.5.5 the Rubric ......................................................................................................... 12

1.5.6 ubmission Timeframes for Faculty Feedback .................................................... 13

1.5.7 Taskstream turnaround times (calendar days – midnight Sunday - MST*) ........ 13

1.5.8 ademic Performance Grades ............................................................................ 14

1.6 Taskstream Submissions ..................................................................................... 15

1.6.1 to Access Taskstream ....................................................................................... 17

1.6.2 Troubleshooting Taskstream ............................................................................. 18

Section 2: The Dissertation Committee ......................................................................... 20

2.1 Dissertation Committee Composition ................................................................... 20

2.2 Selection of Committee Members ........................................................................ 20

2.3 Committee Responsibilities .................................................................................. 20

2.4 Working with a Committee ................................................................................... 21

2.5 Changes in Committee Assignments ................................................................... 21

Section 3: Considerations and Policies (refer to the Catalog for most current info) ....... 21

3.1 Time Limits .......................................................................................................... 21

3


3.2 Academic Integrity ............................................................................................... 22

3.3 Code of Conduct .................................................................................................. 22

3.4 Satisfactory Academic Progress .......................................................................... 22

APPENDIX A: Concept Paper sections to Dissertation Proposal Sections Mapping . 25

APPENDIX B: Dissertation Rubric (Manuscript sample)……………………………….26

4


Introduction

This Handbook (and the documents referenced within) is a resource outlining major elements of the Northcentral University dissertation process. Students and faculty members involved in research and dissertation courses are strongly encouraged to read this Doctoral Student Experience (DSE) Handbook and associated documents (rubric and templates) before beginning work on a dissertation. The terms Dissertation Chair and Chair are used interchangeably within this document.

If you are a student and have questions not answered in this DSE Student Handbook or in any of the supplementary materials, please speak to your Dissertation Chair (academic issues) or Academic Advisor (program or degree issues). Note: Students are responsible for staying current with changes to their program. Check with your Academic Advisor if you have questions about your program of study.

Doctoral Students are identified when they have successfully passed their Comprehensive Examinations/ePortfolio course or end of program coursework as denoted in their Program curriculum outlined in the catalog. Students are encouraged to identify a researchable topic and their preliminary methods approach by the completion of program coursework. This process should be completed by the last course in the program coursework. Based upon the identified topic and methodology, an appropriate Chair and Subject Matter Expert (SME) will be aligned with the needs of each individual student and assigned accordingly.

5


Section 1: The Dissertation Process

The dissertation is the capstone accomplishment in the doctoral student’s degree program. The PhD dissertation has a research focus, and the applied degree (e.g. DBA, and EdD) is practice based. The doctoral dissertation is a substantial, scholarly work conducted independently by a student under the guidance of faculty members comprising the student’s Doctoral Dissertation Committee. In the dissertation process, the student:

Identifies a researchable problem substantiated through evidence Summarizes, analyzes, and integrates recent (generally five years or less)

scholarly literature and research relevant to the topic under study (ultimately) Presents original research in an area related to their program and

specialization. (While PhD dissertations contribute to the body of research, the applied doctorate dissertations typically contribute to practice).

Completes a final manuscript comprised of five Chapters: Chapter One: introduces the problem under study and the evidence

substantiating the existence of the problem; outlines an initial review of literature on the topic under study; articulates the purpose of the study; presents the research questions and theoretical foundation, and provides an overview of the research methods to be employed

Chapter Two: provides a detailed analysis of the theory/conceptual framework used in the study and offers a detailed synthesis of the available, current, scholarly literature on all aspects of the topic, including all relevant points of view

Chapter Three: provides the substantiation for the choice of methods and includes details on the planned research approach, design, and analysis

Chapter Four: presents the study findings Chapter Five: summarizes the research study and presents the research

implications and suggestions for future

The Dissertation process is generally broken into three broad stages: preparation and approval of the Dissertation Proposal (DP) which includes Chapters 1, 2, and 3; conducting the study’s research; and preparation and approval of the final Dissertation Manuscript (DM) which includes all elements of the DP, with the addition of Chapters 4 and 5 to complete the manuscript including the dissertation defense.

The Dissertation process is arduous and iterative. As students proceed through the dissertation process, they will be required to understand and apply faculty/committee feedback. Successful engagement with faculty requires a high level of conceptual understanding. Dissertation committee members review and substantively evaluate work submitted by students. Regular, iterative reviews of dissertation sections and drafts are a common –and important - practice in the process.

6


1.1 Dissertation Courses and Committees

NCU is implementing a revised dissertation course sequence and restructured committee model to support the changes in the dissertation course sequence. The main changes are noted in the table below.

The dissertation courses have been developed into a structured course model. NCU’s dissertation process is a model based on successful completion of course-based deliverables (including the DP and DM), evaluated against a rubric, created by NCU faculty. Each Chapter of the dissertation must meet minimum standards on the associated rubric, as scored by the Chair and the SME, of every criterion for a student to progress to the next course sequence block. A mapping of Concept Paper sections to Dissertation Proposal sections is included in Appendix A.

There will be instances where changes are required for a Chapter that has been previously approved. This frequently occurs when subsequent changes are made to other Chapters and results in changes needing to be made to previously approved Chapters. When this occurs, students must go back and revise and resubmit to the committee these modified Chapters. Once the committee approves the DP and the DM, the AR will review these documents using a checklist, aligned to University standards of scholarship and rigor, noting areas which may require additional changes to the documents. The approval of the AR is not required for the student to progress in their program however the feedback from the AR should be reflected in the final DP or DM.

1.2 Dissertation Course Overview

Dissertation Process

Student Chapter completion; Dissertation Proposal (DP) and Dissertation

Manuscript (DM) completion

Committee evaluation of student work utilizing rubric criteria throughout course

duration

Committee consists of Chair, Subject Matter Expert (SME), and Academic Reader

(AR)

Student makes weekly submissions of specified dissertation components for

committee review to scaffold learning and constructively build dissertation

components

Course progression determined by completed dissertation components (meets

rubric criteria – Appendix B)

All NCU Dissertation Proposals and Manuscripts reviewed by Academic Reader

(full time faculty) to ensure University standards of rigor and quality are met

7


After students have successfully passed the last course in their scheduled program coursework (e.g. Comprehensive Examination, ePortfolio, prospectus), they will be assigned into the dissertation course sequence. There are specific deliverables required for each course. Each course deliverable represents a portion of the overall dissertation process. In order to progress successfully into a subsequent dissertation course each final deliverable must be completed and must meet or exceed the minimum standards on the rubric as completed by the committee.

Remember, scholarly research is iterative and non-linear (however uncomfortable this may be while a student is going through the process). Making a change in a later version to correct an issue in a previous version may reveal new issues that need to be addressed in the subsequently, approved, version.

Ultimately, Northcentral University wants all students to succeed, but we also have to ensure that the institutional outcomes for doctoral dissertations meet quality standards. To that end, the steps of the Dissertation review process designed to facilitate student progress are:

1. Northcentral University’s Chairs and SMEs provide constructive feedback prior to

the DP stage. This is to ensure the student has a feasible and realistic plan to develop a well-conceived, substantive, quality dissertation. Individual Chapter reviews, throughout the development of the DP, serve to assess the topic is appropriate and the planned research is sound and practical within the scope of a doctoral program. The dissertation proposal ensures the problem is substantiated with evidence, the research methods and design are in alignment and serve the purpose and address the problem of the topic under study. In addition, the proposal allows the student to complete an exhaustive review of current scholarly literature addressing all relevant points of view on the topic under study including the theory or conceptual framework used to support the study.

2. The DP must meet the minimum standards on all rubric criteria by the Chair and subject matter expert to proceed to the next course in the dissertation sequence and begin the Institutional Review Board (IRB) application process.

3. Upon final approval of the DP, the student applies to the Institutional Review Board (IRB). No data may be collected until IRB approval is obtained. Failure to observe this rule may result in the student’s dis missa l from Northcentral University.

4. Following IRB approval, the student conducts his/her research and writes the DM in the required manner. The DM is approved by the Dissertation Chair and SME. The approved DM is then sent to the AR for review against the checklist, which may result in the student having to make changes for improvement.

8


5. Upon final approval of the DM, the Dissertation Defense is scheduled. To pass this oral examination, the student must be able to explain and justify what was accomplished by the dissertation research.

1.3 Dissertation Course Sequence

The dissertation courses have been structured into discrete courses with specific deliverables at the end of each course. Additionally, each course requires engagement between the student and the Chair through weekly assignment submissions, similar to the current program coursework requirements. These weekly submissions are scaffolded to build the entire end of course deliverable. The final deliverable must meet the minimum standards of the evaluation process by the end of the course. A few times throughout each course, as noted in the syllabus and directed by the Chair, students submit assignments to the Chair and SME to receive feedback based on rubric criterion.

The dissertation sequence of courses has been designed to assist the student in scaffolding the development of the individual Chapters of the dissertation in a timely and scholarly approach. There are four 12-week courses. The deliverables to be evaluated at the end of the four courses include:

Dissertation course DIS9901A – Chapter One

Dissertation course DIS9902A – Chapter Two and Chapter Three; final DP

Dissertation course DIS9903A – IRB approval, data collection, and final Study Closure Form

Dissertation course DIS9904A – Chapter Four and Chapter Five; final DM and Defense

Students not meeting the minimum standards on the required deliverable at the end of the 12-week course will be assigned to an 8-week supplementary course. The 8-week supplementary course provides additional committee collaboration and support, University support, and a higher ‘hands-on’ process to expedite the student through the areas needing to be addressed in meeting the minimum rubric standards for each deliverable. These supplementary courses also allow for students to continue working on subsequent Chapters and deliverables in advance of starting the next 12-week course once the minimum standards have been met on the current course requirements.

If the student does not meet the minimum criteria of the required course deliverable within the 8-week supplementary course, the student is allowed to retake the 8-week supplementary course again. This second retake of the original dissertation sequence course is the final opportunity for the student to meet the minimum standards for the required course deliverable. Any student who does not meet the minimum criteria on the


9

rubric components for the final end of course deliverable will be dismissed from the University.

The dissertation course sequence includes 4 core 12 week courses and 8 supplemental courses. The course sequence format is below.

DIS9901A (12-week) – Chapter One DIS9901B (8-week) supplemental DIS9901C (8-week) supplemental

DIS9902A (12-week) – Chapter Two and Chapter Three; final Dissertation Proposal DIS9902B (8-week) supplemental DIS9902C (8-week) supplemental

DIS9903A (12-week) – IRB approval, data collection, and final Study Closure Form DIS9903B (8-week) supplemental DIS9903C (8-week) supplemental

DIS9904A (12-week) – Chapter Four and Chapter Five; final Dissertation Manuscript and Defense Dissertation course DIS9904B (8-week) supplemental Dissertation course DIS9904C (8-week) supplemental

In the following diagram, the dissertation course sequences are displayed. Each course sequence block has the required deliverable to meet minimum standards displayed to progress into the next course sequence block.

The table below illustrates the course sequence:

1.4 Dissertation Template

Chapters 2 & 3

Approved w/DP •DIS9901A •**DIS9901B

•**DIS9901C •DIS9902A •**DIS9902B

•**DIS9902C

•DIS9903A •**DIS9903B

•**DIS9903C

Chapters 4 & 5 w/DM Approved and Defense

•DIS9904A

•**DIS9904B

•**DIS9904C Chapter 1 Approved

IRB, Data Collection, Closure Form

**Only if needed


10

A template, formatted to APA standards, is available for use by students. There is also a template formatted to APA with detailed explanations for each section with examples for use by students who would like more direction on completing the sections of the dissertation. Differentiation is noted throughout the document for completing an applied (EdD and DBA) or research (PhD) dissertation. Students should use this template to complete their dissertation course deliverables. Remember students need to remove the explanation sections of the template when developing their work.

1.5 DSE Dissertation Grading

Students must submit something every week in their dissertation course for their Chair to review. Each course contains committee reviews for students to submit the assigned deliverable. Multiple times throughout the courses the student is required to submit the assignment in Courseroom as well as Taskstream (as noted in the syllabus or directed by the Chair). This deliverable will be reviewed by the Chair and SME against the stated rubric criteria in Taskstream. The final submitted deliverable(s) for the course must receive the minimum passing score for all rubric criteria, by all committee members, to receive a passing grade in the course (A or B). If any one of the criteria reflects less than the minimum score, the student receives an ‘F’ for the course and will be enrolled in the associated 8-week supplemental course.

The supplemental course allows the student additional time to complete the expected deliverable(s) to minimum rubric criteria for the dissertation course. In order to receive a passing score in the supplemental course the student must receive the minimum acceptable criteria, by the Chair and SME. If the student receives an ‘F’ in the first supplemental course (DIS990xB), they will be allowed to take the final supplemental course (DIS990xC) to satisfactorily complete the course deliverable(s). Any student who receives ‘F’ grades in both supplemental courses (DIS990xB & C) will not be eligible to enroll in additional courses and will be subject to dismissal from the University.

Dissertation sequence course grades will be assigned by the Chair according to passing rubric criteria: # of ‘exceeds’ vs. # of ‘meets’ (only for those criteria allowing for an ‘exceeds’) will be scored as an A or B between the reconciled scores given from the Chair and the SME; any end of course evaluation against rubric criteria selected as ‘does not meet’ will be assigned a course grade of F, reflecting the incomplete criteria. Not meeting minimum standards on all rubric criteria for an end of course deliverable indicates students must progress to a supplemental course to work on the criterion not meeting minimum standards before moving into the next sequence of courses. As a reminder: the iterative process in developing a dissertation may require the student go back and revise previously approved Chapters before a final DP or DM can be approved

1.5.1 ssertation Rubric


11

A rubric has been developed to align with the requirements of each of the Chapters (Appendix B – sample dissertation manuscript rubric) including the requirements for the dissertation proposal and manuscript. For each component in the dissertation, a student must meet the minimum standards of the rubric criteria, as scored by the Chair and SME, to proceed into the next dissertation course sequence.

1.5.2 Grading Using the Dissertation Rubric

The dissertation rubric (Appendix B) will be used to evaluate the work completed for required course deliverables against institutional expectation criteria. Students should use the dissertation rubric to self-evaluate their work before submitting to their Chair and Committee. All criteria must be designated as ‘Meets’ or ‘Exceeds’ in order for a successful grade to be achieved for the course deliverable and to progress onto the next course of the dissertation sequence. ANY criteria scoring a ‘Does Not Meet’ and the entire paper will be scored as failing and the student will be enrolled in the subsequent supplementary 8-week course. The DSE revised templates and rubric are aligned.

The nature of the dissertation may require revisions to previously approved Chapters to better align with changes made in subsequent Chapters. The three Chapters (1, 2, and 3) will not be considered as completely final (and for progression into IRB and Data Collection) until a Committee approved (meeting minimum criteria) dissertation proposal has been completed. The five Chapters (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) will not be considered as completely final (and for program completion) until a Committee approved (meeting minimum criteria) dissertation manuscript has been completed.

All five individual Chapters, the Proposal, and the Manuscript will be submitted to TurnItIn for originality by the Chair before they can be considered final. The target Turnitin Originality Report should have a similarity index of 15% or less. (excluding references, TOC, and template). TII reports must be submitted with the document feedback from the chair.

1.5.3 Course Progression Criteria

Course progression in the dissertation sequence is determined on students receiving the minimum passing score on all rubric criteria for the stated final course deliverable. The courses requiring passing scores on rubric criteria and substantiating the final course grade include:

DIS9901A/B/C: Minimum passing score of Chapter 1

DIS9902A/B/C: Minimum passing score of Dissertation Proposal

DIS9903A/B/C requires the submission and chair approval of the IRB Study Closure Form or the Not Human Subject Research (NHSR) Study Closure Form.


DIS9904A/B/C: Minimum passing score of Dissertation Manuscript and Oral Defense

The grading criteria include an ‘A’, ‘B’, or ‘F’. Students receiving an ‘A’ (100%) or ‘B’ (85%) as the final grade in the gradebook for the course will be enrolled into the next DIS990XA. Students receiving an ‘F’ (70%) as the final grade for the course will be enrolled into DIS990XB/C. DIS9903X requires the submission of the IRB Study Closure Form or the Not Human Subject Research (NHSR) Study Closure Form. Once the form is filed the Chair can assign a course grade at the end of the course of an ‘A’ (100%). At the end of DIS9903X, if a Study Closure Form has not been filed, meaning the student is still in IRB or data collection, the student will receive an ‘F’ (70%) and progress to the next supplementary course.

1.5.4 Consequences for Failing to Submit Weekly Assignments

Students failing to submit assignments weekly (after two weeks of non-submission) will be identified as ‘at-risk’ by the Chair which may result in outreach by the academic advisor, School designee, or other University representative. Course, institutional, or other consequences may be instituted for students’ failure to follow academic submission and course requirements.

1.5.5 Using the Rubric

Each rubric has specific criteria outlined based on the submitted deliverable. There are criteria where the only acceptable values are ‘Meets’ and ‘Does Not Meet’. There are other substantive criteria allowing for ‘Exceeds’, ‘Meets’, and ‘Does Not Meet’. Students are graded (for A or B grades) based only on the criterion allowing the scoring of an ‘Exceeds’ for final course deliverable.

The grading criteria include an ‘A’, ‘B’, or ‘F’.

Any reconciled rubric (reconciling Chair and SME individual rubric scores as managed by the Chair) scoring a single ‘Does Not Meet’ and the paper will be considered as not passing and the course grade must be marked as an ‘F’ grade and the student will be enrolled in the 8-week supplemental course DIS990XB/C.

If the number of Exceeds is greater than the number of Meets (FOR ONLY THOSE CRITERION ALLOWING FOR AN EXCEEDS SCORE) AND there have been no ‘Does Not Meet’ criteria. The student would receive an A.

If the number of Meets is greater than the number of Exceeds (FOR ONLY THOSE CRITERION ALLOWING FOR AN EXCEEDS SCORE) AND there have been no ‘Does Not Meet’ criteria. The student would receive a B.

TaskStream scoring has been designed to indicate if the final score is a whole number the student would earn a passing score (A or B).

12


13

If the final score results in a number with a decimal, the student has received a ‘Does Not Meet’ (.01) and the student will not pass. The decimal number indicates the number of ‘Does Not Meet’ criteria. The score for the final grade would be an ‘F’.

1.5.6 Submission Timeframes for Faculty Feedback

The dissertation course structure requires students to turn in an assignment every week. Assignment deadlines are Sunday at midnight, Mountain Standard Time. Students will upload their work in the assignment section of each week. Chairs will access the paper and download it from the assignment section. Chairs will provide feedback within the document and upload it in the same assignment section within the stated guidelines in the syllabi for feedback timeframes.

Students failing to submit assignments weekly will be identified as ‘at-risk’ (missing two weeks in a row) by the Chair which may result in University outreach and/or consequences for failure to attend.

1.5.7 Taskstream turnaround times (calendar days – midnight Sunday - MST*)

The rubric for evaluating the dissertation Chapters, Proposal, and Manuscript are in

Taskstream. For the weeks requiring Taskstream submissions the student must submit

to the Courseroom and Taskstream.

Chairs have 7 calendar days to provide feedback to students on weekly submissions. Chairs and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) have 7 calendar days to return feedback on work submitted in Taskstream. The exceptions to this rule include full Chapter 2 submissions in Taskstream, the submission of the Dissertation Proposal in Taskstream, and the Dissertation Manuscript in Taskstream all which allow a 14 calendar day turnaround time for feedback in Taskstream.

Feedback time frames are listed below:

- Chapter 1 (7 days)



- Dissertation Proposal Draft (14 days)

- Final Dissertation Proposal AR (14 days)

- IRB Approval Form (7 days)

- IRB Closure /NHSR Closure (7 days)



- Dissertation Manuscript Draft (14 days)

- Dissertation Oral Defense (7 days)


14

- Final Dissertation Manuscript AR (14 days)

*Submission back to the student must include a TurnItIn report for each

Taskstream link by the Chair (goal is to achieve a TurnItIn Originality Report

which has a similarity index of 15% or less (excluding references, TOC, and

template).

Assignments submitted after the course end date will not be included in the end of course grade.

1.5.8 Academic Performance Grades

Grades are based on the scoring criteria from the rubric. Students are graded according to their individual performance on the deliverable against the rubric criteria. Students are not compared with each other to determine a grade or performance ranking.

Grade points are assigned to academic performance grades as indicated and are used to calculate a Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) for each student. Grades are assigned in the dissertation course sequence by the number of exceeds, meets, and does not meet on the rubric from the reconciled committee scores. When the number of Exceeds criteria (of those criterion able to score ‘Exceeds’) is more than the ‘Meets’ criteria (for those criterion able to be scored ‘Exceeds’) the paper should be assigned an ‘A’. If any criterion score ‘Does Not Meet’, the paper will be determined as ‘not passing’ and will be scored an ‘F’.

Course grades are not to be submitted before the last day of the course.


15

1.6 Taskstream Submissions

Every three weeks, or as noted in the syllabus, all work completed throughout the dissertation courses should be submitted to Taskstream for review by the SME and the Chair. The work also needs to be submitted in the Courseroom to allow for progress monitoring. The SME and Chair will use the rubric to evaluate each component of the submitted document. The completed rubric and edited document will be submitted back into Taskstream by the Chair and SME. The Chair will then reconcile the scores. All criteria on the rubric must be marked as meets or exceeds by the committee in order for the student to move onto the next 12 week dissertation course.

The final draft of the DP and DM will be submitted to the AR by the Chair to be reviewed against a checklist of University criteria in Taskstream once the document has passed all the rubric criteria by the Chair and the SME. Recommendations from the AR should be made to the final DP and DM under the direction of the Chair. Any criteria not meeting minimum standard for the end of course deliverable and the student will be enrolled in the supplemental 8 week course.

The Taskstream submission timeframes are noted throughout the syllabi for the courses. Additional submissions can occur if the student completes a deliverable, and the Chair believes the deliverable is ready for evaluation by the committee.

The rubric has been developed for all Chapters, the proposal, manuscript, and front and back matter.

Grading Notes:

All criteria must be at an “Exceeds” or “Meets” on the rubric to be considered passing. Any criteria marked as ‘Does Not Meets’ results a paper not passing and will be assigned an ‘F’ grade for the Chapter/proposal/manuscript.

Once the proposal / manuscript is determined by the Chair and SME to be a minimum quality on the rubric the Chair can submit to the AR for review.

The following are the submission links and processes in Taskstream (TS):

- Chapter One (student submitted – TS notification to Committee) – Chair and

SME (evaluate, feedback, upload feedback – Chair reconciles and TS email sent

to student)

- Chapter Two – (student submitted – TS notification to Committee) – Chair and


to student)


16

- Chapter Three – (student submitted – TS notification to Committee) – Chair and


to student)

- Dissertation Proposal Draft (Chapters 1, 2, 3 and front and back matter) –

(student submitted – TS notification to Committee) – Chair and SME (evaluate,

feedback, upload feedback – Chair reconciles and TS email sent to student)

- Dissertation Proposal AR - Reader – Chair submits ‘passing’ proposal to AR –

TS email to AR - AR completes checklist and provides feedback

- Final Dissertation Proposal – Student revises based on AR feedback and Chair

direction and submits final, clean copy to Final Dissertation Proposal link – Chair

checks off as complete

- IRB Approval Form – Student Submits – Chair checks off as complete – if there

is a modification the Chair needs to return to the student to resubmit modification

approval form and the Chair signs off again on resubmitted approved

modification form

- IRB Closure Form – Student submits to Taskstream – Chair checks off as

complete

- Chapter Four (student submitted – TS notification to Committee) – Chair and


to student)

- Chapter Five – (student submitted – TS notification to Committee) – Chair and


to student)

- Dissertation Manuscript Draft (All Chapters including front and back matter) –

(student submitted – TS notification to Committee) – Chair and SME (evaluate,

feedback, upload feedback – Chair reconciles and TS email sent to student)

- Dissertation Manuscript AR - Reader – Chair submits ‘passing’ manuscript to

AR – TS email to AR - AR completes checklist and provides feedback


17

- Dissertation Manuscript Final – Student revises based on AR feedback and

Chair direction and submits final, clean copy to Final Dissertation Manuscript link

– Chair checks off as complete

Dissertation Oral Defense – Student submits final Oral Defense PPT and Chair

checks off as complete

Students are reminded while their submitted documents are being evaluated they are expected to continue conducting appropriate activities to advance their research. Resources and next steps are outlined in all the doctoral courses. Students are expected to continue working on subsequent Chapter components advancing their work towards a timely completion. Doctoral research is an ongoing, iterative learning process requiring extensive and continual effort. All available information for progressing through the doctoral dissertation courses are in all the dissertation courses allowing the student to work ahead while the committee works on evaluating the current paper.

1.6.1 How to Access Taskstream

You can upload your assignment to Taskstream using the steps outlined below.

Step 1: You will log into your Taskstream account via the website https://login.taskstream.com/signon/. If you do not know your Taskstream password, you can click the “forgot login” link at https://login.taskstream.com/signon/ and enter your last name and NCU student email address. Your Taskstream user name is your NCU email address. Password reset information will be sent to your NCU student email address.

Step 2. You will be directed to the Taskstream home page. On the home page, you will see the courses which you have been assigned in Taskstream. Click on the Program icon titled ‘Doctoral Student Experience (DSE)’.

Step 3: On the left side of your screen you will see a list of the different dissertation submission links. Click on the link corresponding to the dissertation component you are planning to upload (e.g., Chapter 1, Chapter 2, or the Dissertation Proposal).

Step 4: On the following screen, links for the assignment directions and rubric will be accessible. To review the assignment directions you can click on the directions. To review the rubric for the assignment you can click onto the rubric link.

https://login.taskstream.com/signon/




18

Step 5: To upload your Dissertation assignment, click the “Attachments” icon at the bottom on the screen. Click ‘up load’ file and select the file you wish to upload.

Step 6: Once you have successfully uploaded your assignment, you will see it listed in the area “currently attached uploaded files.” You have the option to view, edit, or delete this file on the right side of the frame.

Once you have uploaded your assignment, click the “Save and Return” button on the bottom right of the screen.

Step 7: Once you click the “save and return” button, you will be prompted to submit the assignment you uploaded. Click the “Submit Work” button, at the top right of the screen.

Step 8: A pop-up window will appear verifying your submission. Click the ‘confirm submission’ button to send your work to your committee.

If you are experiencing problems and cannot submit your assignment please reach out to [email protected] for assistance. Please be sure to always use your NCU email when requesting assistance.

1.6.2 Troubleshooting Taskstream

System Requirements

Taskstream is a highly dynamic environment that requires the use of a compatible web browser to function effectively. Below are Taskstream’s web browser requirements.

Browser pop-up blockers must be disabled

Browser pop-ups must be enabled

Browser cookies must be enabled

Preferred browsers are Firefox (latest), Chrome (latest), and Internet Explorer (IE) 11.

JavaScript must be enabled

Limited functionality for iPhones, iPads, and other mobile devices such as a cell phone. A desktop or laptop computer is highly recommended.

Disabling Pop-up Blockers

A browser’s pop-up blockers must be disabled in order to use Taskstream. Here is a helpful website showing how to disable a browser’s pop-up blocker depending on your provider.

mailto:[email protected]


19

How to Disable Pop-up Blockers 1: https://help.taskstream.com/customer/en/portal/articles/1703865-how-do-i-disable-pop- up-blocker-?b_id=2104

Enabling Browser Cookies

Taskstream requires cookies to be enabled. The steps to follow to enable cookies vary based on the specific version of the Internet browser you use.

How to Enable Browser Cookies: https://help.taskstream.com/customer/en/portal/articles/1939609-does-taskstream- require-cookies-to-be-enabled-?b_id=2104

Enabling JavaScript

Taskstream requires the use of Java on your machine to use the split screen function during the evaluation of an artifact. Java is disabled by default on a Mac. Evaluators can visit Java’s website for download of the software and/or to learn how to enable Java within their web browser. https://www.java.com/en/download/help/enable_browser.xml

If you are experiencing problems with system configuration please reach out to [email protected].

https://help.taskstream.com/customer/en/portal/articles/1703865-how-do-i-disable-pop-up-blocker-?b_id=2104



https://help.taskstream.com/customer/en/portal/articles/1939609-does-taskstream-require-cookies-to-be-enabled-?b_id=2104



https://www.java.com/en/download/help/enable_browser.xml

mailto:[email protected]


20

Section 2: The Dissertation Committee

2.1 Dissertation Committee Composition

The Dissertation Committee provides a student with the direction, guidance, support, and feedback needed to complete all phases and Chapters of the dissertation. The Dissertation Committee consists of three Northcentral University faculty members. The Dissertation Chair has significant expertise in research processes, procedures, methodology, and proficiency in guiding the student through the dissertation process. The second committee member serves in the role of Subject Matter Expert (SME) bringing expertise in the field of study while also supporting the student in any methods approach. The Academic Reader (AR) has expertise in research methods and familiarity with the field of study and ensures the dissertation aligns to University standards of academic integrity, rigor, research methods, and quality.

This model allows continued support to students throughout the development of their dissertation components, even through times of committee members being out of office. When a committee member is out of the office the student is able to reach out to the other members with questions or for assistance.

2.2 Selection of Committee Members

A student receives an assignment to a Dissertation Chair, SME, and AR during the last course of their program coursework. The student identifies to their respective School Assistant Dean or other School designee their intended topic and methodological approach. The School Assistant Dean or other School designee will then assign the appropriate committee members, depending on faculty knowledge and experience of the topic in the students’ field of study, to support the needs of the student.

All students who are enrolling in their first dissertation (DIS) course will be assigned a Dissertation Chair, a SME, and AR. The selection of a SME will depend on faculty knowledge, availability, and experience of the topic in the students’ field of study. All committee members will be assigned by the disciplinary School.

2.3 Committee Responsibilities

The ultimate responsibility of the Chair of the Dissertation Committee is to determine whether the student has demonstrated the competencies and the accomplishments requisite to the award of their degree. The Chair is supported by the SME and AR in helping the student to complete their dissertation. Each member has a specific role in the success of each student. The Chair is the primary point of contact and mentor for the student. The SME supports the student in each of the courses through reviewing course deliverables and providing additional support as needed throughout the development of the proposal, IRB materials, and manuscript. The AR supports the


21

student through review with recommendations for final proposal and manuscript development.

2.4 Working with a Committee

All communication among students and Committee Members must be timely, open, and honest. All concerned should maintain a positive, respectful, and professional relationship.

The student must take responsibility to notify their Chair of any and all academic concerns prior to notifying anyone else in the institution. If the Chair has not been notified, the concern will not be considered. Examples of academic issues include, but are not limited to: document contents, structure and format; results of reviews by SMEs and ARs; alignment of SMEs to student discipline or topic; and, changing degree program track.

Students and their Dissertation Chairs should communicate regularly with one another using NCU provided communication tools. Chairs may also choose to communicate with students via telephone, teleconference, or videoconference. All communications outside the NCU course room or communication tools must be documented by the Chair in the course and/or other NCU systems as appropriate.

2.5 Changes in Committee Assignments

Student requests to change committee members are very rare. Students may request to replace a committee member only in very unusual situations and only after consulting with their academic advisor. Students must contact their academic advisor to discuss the process to change a committee member. Prior to requesting any such change, students are expected to use conflict management strategies to resolve issues surrounding communication and feedback. The scholarly journey is an iterative process and although students may not always agree with feedback they are expected to listen actively, reflect, and pose clarifying questions to overcome normal communication and personality differences.

In all situations involving requests for Committee changes, the decision of the Dean of the student’s disciplinary School (or Dean’s designee) as to what is in the student’s best interest is final.

Section 3: Considerations and Policies (refer to the Catalog for most

current info)

3.1 Time Limits

For current time limits, please review the Satisfactory Academic Progress policy in the NCU Catalog.


22

3.2 Academic Integrity

Northcentral University’s reputation depends on an uncompromising commitment to standards of academic integrity. The Northcentral University Academic Integrity Policy, to which all students and faculty members are bound, is available through your student or faculty member page.

Doctoral students are expected to follow the highest standards of professional ethics, intellectual honesty, and academic integrity. All work submitted to a faculty member in any course is subject to originality confirmation. Faculty members have the responsibility to reject work that fails to meet the standards outlined in the Northcentral University Academic Integrity Policy.

Northcentral University dissertation-related work is checked to ensure they meet Northcentral University standards of Academic Integrity. Plagiarism, misrepresentation, or fabrication of information or research results will not be tolerated and may be grounds for immediate dismissal from the University.

All Chapters, the Dissertation Proposal, and the Dissertation Manuscript will be submitted to TurnItIn for originality by the Chair before these documents can be considered final. The target Turnitin Originality Report should have a similarity index of 15% or less. (excluding references, TOC, and template). TII reports must be submitted with the document feedback from the chair.

3.3 Code of Conduct

All members of the Northcentral University community are bound by the Northcentral University Code of Conduct (COC) contained in the current Northcentral University Course Catalog and thus are expected to act in a professional manner at all times. Failure to adhere to the COC may lead to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.

3.4 Satisfactory Academic Progress

For additional information regarding Satisfactory Academic Progress, please review the Satisfactory Academic Progress policy in the Catalog.

3.5 Assignment Deadlines and Final Course Grades

Assignments submitted after the course end date will not be graded and calculated in the final grade for the course. Course grades will not be assigned until after the course end date.

3.6 Incomplete Grades


23

Students may request an incomplete grade extension if they meet the following requirements:

An unforeseen circumstance threatens a student’s ability to complete a course by the scheduled course end date.

The student has completed 75% of the course

The student has a “C” average for the assignments submitted thus far

The student is earning a passing grade in the course at the time the "I" grade is requested

NOTE: The following Doctoral courses are not eligible for an incomplete grade:

- DIS9901A and B - DIS9902A and B - DIS9903A and B

- DIS9904A and B

Incomplete grade extension requests are submitted to faculty for review. Faculty may approve a request at their discretion if students meet the eligibility criteria listed above. Incomplete grade request decisions are final and cannot be appealed.

3.7 Unsatisfactory Grades for Dissertation Courses

DIS9901A-9904C – Students who are unable to earn a grade of “B” or better by the third course within in a dissertation block (DIS990XA, DIS990XB, and DIS990XC) are subject to dismissal from the University.

3.7.1 Repeating Doctoral Sequence Courses

Students enrolled in course codes CMP9600 through CMP9799 and DIS9901A through DIS9904C may be eligible to earn a repeated Doctoral Sequence (“RD”) grade for courses that were originally completed with a grade of “F” if subsequent attempts are completed with a “B” or better. Courses awarded an “RD” grade will not be used in GPA calculations. Some courses may not be eligible for a retake grade; students should work with their Academic Advisor to determine course repeat eligibility.

NOTE: A dissertation block consists of a 12-week dissertation course (DIS990XA) and two 8-week supplemental courses (DIS990XB and DIS990XC). For “F” grade(s) to be replaced, students must successfully complete the dissertation block with a grade of “B” or better by the end of the second supplemental dissertation course (DIS990XC).

3.7.2 Maximum “RD” Grade Policy for Doctoral Sequence


24

A student may utilize the “RD” grade a maximum of ten times during the Doctoral Sequence (CMP9600+ and DIS9901A+). Dean permission is needed prior to attempting the CMP course for a third and final time. During the dissertation, a student will be allowed a maximum of two RD grades per dissertation block.


25

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Concept Paper sections to Dissertation Proposal Sections Mapping

Dissertation components percent CP aligned to DP

components

Chapter 1 - CP 80%

Chapter 2 - CP 20%

Chapter 3 - CP 35%

References

- CP 20%

Concept paper components

CP Introduction - Maps to DP Chapters 1 and 2

CP Statement of the Problem - Maps to DP Chapters 1 and 3

CP Purpose of the Study - Maps to DP Chapters 1, 2, and 3

CP Theoretical Framework - Maps to DP Chapters 1 and 2

CP Research Questions

- Maps to DP Chapters 1 and 3 CP Hypotheses (quantitative)

- Maps to DP Chapters 1 and 3 CP Definition of Key Terms

- Maps to DP Chapters 1 and 3

26

APPENDIX B: Dissertation Rubric (Manuscript sample)

DSE Dissertation Manuscript rubric and grading criteria

A rubric has been developed for all individual Chapters (1-5), the Dissertation Proposal (DP), and the Dissertation Manuscript (DM). Course grades will be determined using the rubric for DIS9901X (Chapter 1 meeting minimum criteria), DIS9902X (Dissertation Proposal meeting minimum criteria), and DIS9904X (Dissertation Manuscript meeting minimum criteria). Grading will be completed by the Chair and the Subject Matter Expert (SME) and the final scores will be reconciled to determine the final grade. The individual Chapter rubrics are in the courses for use by the student to self- evaluate and in Taskstream. Taskstream will be used as the evaluation tool for assessing student work by the committee. The final DP and DM will be read by the Academic Reader (AR) and comments and suggestions from the AR should be incorporated into the final papers under the direction of the Chair.

For all final Chapter, DP, and DM Taskstream submissions the Chair must run a TurnItIn report. The target Turnitin Originality Report should have a similarity index of 15% or less. (excluding references, TOC, and template). TurnItIn reports must be submitted with the document feedback from the Chair in Taskstream.

Students should use this rubric to self-evaluate their work before submitting to their Chair and Committee. All criteria must be designated as ‘Meets’ or ‘Exceeds’ in order for a successful grade to be achieved. If ANY criteria is scored as ‘Does Not Meet’, the entire paper will be scored as failing.

The nature of the dissertation may require revisions to previously approved Chapters to better align with changes made in subsequent Chapters. The five Chapters (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) will not be considered final until a Committee approved (meeting minimum criteria) dissertation manuscript has been completed.

The Dissertation Manuscript rubric is below.

DISSERTATION MANUSCRIPT FRONT MATTER APA Format –

writing/presentation

Not used for this criteria Consistently applies fundamental

APA formatting for TOC, List of

Tables, List of Figures, throughout

the DP. The template requirements

Inconsistently applies fundamental

APA formatting for TOC, List of

Tables, List of Figures, throughout the

DP. The template requirements are

27


are followed. not followed.

Performance Component Meets Does Not Meet

Comments (required for all

“Does not meet”) Dissertation Manuscript Not used for this criteria All discussion related to the

proposed study is written in past

tense

Verb tenses are not matched with the

manuscript.

Performance Component Exceeds Meets Does Not Meet


“Does not meet”)

Introduction A well-written, scholarly, and

CHAPTER 1 A clear overview of the study is

The study overview is incomplete or

compelling narrative orienting the

reader to the context of the study.

The narrative flows from general to

specific framing the topic under

study within the literature (Applied

degree frames in practice – PhD

frames in adding to the literature).

provided. There is a flow from

general to specific of the topic.

Major points are adequately

supported by the literature (Applied

degree frames in practice – PhD

frames in adding to the literature).

unclear. Key elements are

inadequately addressed, all points are

not supported in the literature, key

concepts lack coherence and clarity.

Not framed to proper program of

study.

Performance Component Exceeds (2) Meets (1) Does Not Meet (.01)



Statement of the Problem A clearly articulated problem,

aligned with the material in the

Introduction, supported by strong

evidence (within the past year) is

identified and clearly discussed. The

significance of the problem is clearly

discussed. (Applied problem

discussed in evidence of the local

problem and larger population / PhD

problem framed in the literature

beyond a specific site documenting

the need for and importance of the

study).

A clear problem is explained and

supported through the material in the

Introduction. Strong evidence (most

within the past 5 years) is provided

and discussed. (Applied problem

discussed in evidence of the local

problem and larger population / PhD

problem framed in the literature

beyond a specific site documenting

the need for and importance of the

study).

The description of the problem is

incomplete or unclear. No evidence is

provided indicating the problem

exists. Evidence to support the

problem is dated. Lacks alignment

with the material in the Introduction.

The significance of the problem is not

discussed is unclear or not discussed.

(Applied problem is not discussed in

evidence of the local problem and

larger population / PhD problem is not

framed in the literature beyond a

specific site documenting the need for

and importance of the study).

28





Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study is

succinctly articulated, and is a

logical response aligned to the stated

problem, a detailed summary of how

the study (will be – DP) (was - DM)

conducted is provided.

The purpose of the study is described

and aligns to the stated problem, a

summary of how the study (will be –

DP) (was - DM) conducted is

provided.

The purpose for the study is

incomplete or unclear. Key elements

are inadequately addressed and does

not align to the stated problem, study

details are not supported, and/or lack

coherence and clarity (DP or DM)




Introduction to

Theoretical/Conceptual

Framework (not required for

grandfathered CPs but

recommended)

The theory(ies) or conceptual

framework used to frame the study

are identified, clearly articulated, and

discussed in the context of the

literature and study topic If multiple

frameworks are used, a clear

explanation is provided for how they

interrelate within the context of the

study topic and literature.

The theory(ies) or conceptual

framework used to frame the study

are identified and explained through

use of the literature and study topic.

If multiple frameworks are used, a

description is provided for how they

interrelate within the context of the

study topic and literature.

The discussion of the theory(ies) or

conceptual framework is incomplete,

unclear, or missing. Key elements are

inadequately addressed, all points are

not supported, and/or there is a lack of

coherence and clarity. If multiple

theories are used, a clear explanation

for their interrelationship is lacking or

missing. (NOTE: for grandfathered

applied dissertations this section was not

required – this criteria should be marked as

meets for these papers).




Research Questions/

Hypotheses

Research question(s) are directly

answerable beyond a yes/no

response, are specific, testable

include the population and

environments/topics. Research

questions are directly aligned with

design and support the problem and

purpose. The core concepts

(qualitative) and/or operational

variables (quantitative) are described

Research question(s) are directly

answerable beyond a yes/no

response, fairly specific and testable

based on the data collected. Research

questions are aligned with design and

support the problem and

purpose. The core concepts

(qualitative) and/or operational

variables (quantitative) are included.

The research questions are incomplete

or lack coherence, clarity, not testable,

and/or not aligned to the problem and

purpose. The core concepts and/or

operational variables are missing.

29


(quantitative/mixed methods

studies only)

clearly and appropriately.

If hypotheses are included, they are

singular, clear, balanced, specific,

and testable based on the data

collected and align to the study

problem, purpose, and design.

If hypotheses are included, they are

singular, clear, balanced, specific,

and testable based on the data

collected and align to the study

problem, purpose, and design.

The hypotheses are incomplete or lack

coherence and clarity, are not testable

or not aligned to problem, purpose,

and/or design – FOR QUALITATIVE

STUDIES MARK THIS AS MEETS

– IF THE OTHER CRITERIA HAVE

BEEN MET




Nature of Study A brief and coherent overview of the

study design, variables/constructs,

instruments, and analyses is

provided, based on current literature

explaining why the proposed method

and design are the optimum choices

to address the study’s research

question(s).

A brief overview of the study design,

variables/constructs, instruments, and

analyses is provided based on current

literature describing why the

proposed method and design were

chosen to address the study’s

research question(s).

The brief overview of the study is

incomplete or unclear. The proposed

method and design are not clearly

described. Components of the study

design, variables/constructs,

instruments and analyses are missing.

Little to no explanation for the chosen

method and design is provided.




Significance of the Study A clear, succinct summary of the

contribution the study will provide to

the larger field of study is well-

articulated. The need for the study is

described and aligned with the

problem and articulates negative

consequences if the study is not

conducted, with supportive current

literature.

A summary of the contribution the

study will provide to the larger field

of study is provided. The need for

the study is described and aligned

with the problem and is supported

with current literature.

The anticipated contribution of the

study is incomplete or unclear. The

need for the study is not discussed and

there is a lack of current literature

supporting claims. The significance

does not align with the problem.




Definition of Key Terms A complete definition, with

appropriate citations, is provided for

Definitions are provided with

appropriate citations for most terms

The definitions of key terms are

incomplete or unclear. Personal

30


key terms related to the dissertation

topic not commonly used or

understood. Terms are in

alphabetical order and in own words.

related to the dissertation topic.

Terms are in alphabetical order.

descriptions are used, too many

common words are used, methods and

theoretical terms are included.




Summary Chapter ends with a clear and

succinct summary of the need and

purpose of the study, method and

design, anticipated contributions, and

transitions into the next chapter.

Chapter ends with a basic summary

of the need and purpose of the study,

method and design, anticipated

contributions, and transitions into the

next chapter.

The summary of the study is

incomplete or unclear, lacks focus on

the need and purpose of the study,

method and design, anticipated

outcomes, and transitions into the next

chapter.




CHAPTER 2 Introduction/literature search

strategies

The reader is completely oriented to

the topic areas covered and the

organization of the review. All

major themes/concepts are clearly

introduced. The strategy used for

searching the literature is well-

articulated.

The reader is adequately oriented to

the topic areas covered. An outline

of the flow of the chapter is

presented. All major

themes/concepts are introduced.

Literature search strategies are

presented.

The section is missing; or some topic

areas are not included in the

introduction or are not explained

clearly. The chapter outline is not

provided and the literature search

strategies are missing.




Full Theoretical/Conceptual

Framework

All relevant theories and concepts

are covered in sufficient detail to

orient the reader to the research.

Detailed, concise description(s) of

the theory(ies)/conceptual

framework(s) are provided and

substantiated in the current literature.

The origin or sources of the

Most theories and concepts are

covered in detail to orient the reader

to the research. Description(s) of the

theory(ies)/conceptual framework(s)

are provided and supported in the

literature. The sources of the

framework are described and provide

the rationale for the choice of the

The section is missing; or some

theoretical foundations of the research

are not discussed or some relevant

theories are omitted. Student fails to

adequately elaborate on

theoretical/conceptual framework

introduction in Chapter 1 (NOTE: for

grandfathered applied dissertations

31


framework are described in detail,

and provide the rationale for the

choice of the framework for the

study through substantiation in the

historical and current literature.

framework for the study through

substantiation in the literature.

this section was not required – this

criteria should be marked as meets for

these papers).




Research Themes Themes are arranged logically with

concise article analysis, comparison

of all points of views on the topic,

research findings, and a thorough

review of prior literature and

research exists. Within each theme,

topics are arranged from broad to

narrow, clearly related to the

problem, purpose, research

questions, and associated concepts.

Synthesis is achieved through

discussion of convergence and

divergence of scholarly literature.

Themes are arranged logically

analyzing all points of view with

prior research and findings on the

topic. Within each theme, topics are

discussed from broad to narrow

associated with the problem,

purpose, research questions and

associated concepts. Critically

evaluated scholarly literature noting

areas of convergence and

divergence.

Themes are random and unorganized,

concepts are not ordered, and some

relevant themes are omitted. Themes

do not follow a logical progression.

All points of view are not addressed

and relations are not with the problem,

purpose, and research questions.

Chapter reads more like a mini-book

report rather than a synthesized

discussion of scholarly literature.




Summary All relevant information is well-

covered and refers to all the major

themes introduced in the

introduction. The reader is left with

enough information to be well-

acquainted with all topics necessary

to begin reading about the research

methodology.

All relevant information is

adequately covered and refers to

most of the major themes introduced

in the introduction. The reader is left

with enough information to be

familiar with the topics necessary to

begin reading about the research

methodology.

The section is missing; or some

relevant information or themes are

omitted. The summary does not

follow logically from the literature

review or the introduction.




CHAPTER 3 QUANTITATIVE

32


FOR QUANTITATIVE STUDIES ONLY – FOR QUALITATIVE SKIP TO NEXT SECTION Chapter 3: Introduction The reader is completely oriented to


organization of the chapter. All

themes/concepts are clearly

introduced.










provided and/or is unclear.




Research Method and Design

QUANTITATIVE

Explains and justifies how the

research method and design are

aligned with the study problem,


Substantiates the appropriateness of

the research method and design, and

the appropriateness of the method

with the design to accurately

advance knowledge in the discipline,

alternate choices are discussed.

Describes how the research method

and design are aligned with the study

problem, purpose, and research

questions. Uses scholarly support to

describe how the design choice is

consistent with the research method,

and alternate choices are discussed.

There is a lack of alignment among the

chosen research method and

design and the study’s problem,

purpose, and research questions. There

is a lack of justification and alternate

choices for methods.




33


Population/Selection of

Subjects QUANTITATIVE

Provides a detailed description of the

target population includes details to

the representativeness to the broader

population. There is a detailed

description of the methods and

inclusion/exclusion criteria used to

select the participants (sample) of the

study.

Power analysis is clearly described

and appropriately cited.

Provides a description of the target

population and the relation to the

larger population.

Inclusion/exclusion criteria for

selecting participants (sample) of the

study are noted.

Power analysis is described and

appropriately cited.

There is a lack of a description of the

sample, demographics, and the

representativeness of the sample to the

broader population. There is little to

no description of the



study.

A power analysis is not described and

appropriately cited.




34


Instrumentation

QUANTITATIVE

Provides a clear, concise, detailed

description of the instruments used

(e.g., tests or surveys). Includes

detailed information regarding

instrument origin, reliability, and

validity. Explained any permission

needed to use the instrument(s) and

cited properly.

For Pilot Study: Provides clear,

concise, detailed description of

procedure for conducting a pilot

study (requires IRB approval for

pilot) if using a self-created

instrument (e.g., survey

questionnaire); clearly explained use

of a field test if practicing the

administration of the instruments is

warranted.

Provides a description of the

instruments associated with the

chosen research method and design

used (e.g., tests or surveys). Includes

information regarding instrument

origin, reliability, and validity.

Includes any permission needed to

use the instrument(s) and cited

properly.

For Pilot Study: Explained the

procedure for conducting a pilot

study (requires IRB approval for

pilot) if using a self-created

instrument (e.g., survey

questionnaire); explained use of a

field test if practicing the


warranted.

Lacks a description of the instruments

associated with the chosen research

method and design used (e.g., tests or

surveys). Details missing regarding

instrument origin, reliability, and

validity. Lacks explanation of any

permission needed to use the

instrument(s) and cited properly.

Instrument permissions are missing in

appendices

For Pilot Study: Did not clearly

explain the procedure for conducting a

pilot study (did not conduct pilot) if

using a self-created instrument (e.g.,

survey questionnaire); no explanation

of a field test if practicing the


warranted



“Does not meet”) Operational Definitions Concisely states and explains the

study variables examined as being

measurable and/or observable.

Study variables are described in

terms of being measurable and/or

observable.

Discussion of the study variables

examined is lacking information

and/or is unclear.




35


Procedures

QUANTITATIVE

Clearly described all the steps and

procedures for conducting the study

in replicable detail, including

participant recruitment and

notification, and informed consent.

IRB ethical practices are explained.

Described the procedures for

conducting the study in enough

detail to practically replicate the

study including participant

recruitment and notification, and

informed consent. IRB ethical

practices are noted.

Procedures are not clear or replicable.

Steps are missing and recruitment,

selection, and informed consent are

not established. . IRB ethical practices

are missing or unclear.




36


Data Collection and Analysis

QUANTITATIVE

Provides in replicable detail a

description and process of the data

collected, coded/processed and

analyzed, and the process used in

gathering the data respective to the

chosen method and design.

Clearly demonstrates

alignment/mapping between the data

collected and the research questions

and/or hypotheses of the study.

Includes the data analysis processes

including, but not limited to:

Thoroughly described the statistical

tests performed and for what

purpose/outcome, coding of data

linked to each RQ, the software used

(e.g., SPSS, Qualtrics).

Provides a description of the data

collected and the processes used in

gathering the data.

Explains alignment between the data


and/or hypotheses of the study.

Includes the data analysis processes

including, but not limited to:

Described the statistical tests

performed and for what

purpose/outcome, coding of data


(e.g., SPSS, Qualtrics).

Did not clearly provide a description

of the data and the processes to collect

data. Lack of alignment between the

data collected and the research

questions and/or hypotheses of the

study.

Did not clearly provide the data

analysis processes including, but not

limited to: Did not clearly describe

the statistical tests performed and for

what purpose/outcome, coding of data


(e.g. SPSS, Qualtrics).




CHAPTER 3 QUALITATIVE Chapter 3: Introduction The reader is completely oriented to


organization of the chapter. All

themes/concepts are clearly

introduced.










provided and/or is unclear.

37





QUALITATIVE METHODS ONLY

Research Method and Design

QUALITATIVE

Explains and justifies how the

research method and design are

aligned with the study problem,


Substantiates the appropriateness of

the research method and design, and

the appropriateness of the method

with the design to accurately

advance knowledge in the discipline,

alternate choices are discussed.

Describes how the research method

and design are aligned with the study

problem, purpose, and research

questions. Uses scholarly support to

describe how the design choice is

consistent with the research method,

and alternate choices are discussed.

The study phenomenon, boundaries

of case(s) and/or constructs explored

are described.

There is a lack of alignment among the

chosen research method and

design and the study problem,

purpose, and research questions. There

is a lack of justification and alternate

choices for methods

There is no clear discussion of the

study phenomenon, boundaries of

case(s), and/or constructs explored

Concisely states the study

phenomenon, boundaries of case(s)

and/or constructs explored



“Does not meet”) Population/Selection of

Subjects QUALITATIVE

Provides a detailed description of the

target population includes details to

the representativeness to the broader

population. There is a detailed

description of the methods and



study.

Provides a description of the target

population and the relation to the

larger population.

Inclusion/exclusion criteria for

selecting participants (sample) of the

study are noted.

There is a lack of a description of the

sample, demographics, and the

representativeness of the sample to the

broader population. There is little to

no description of the



study.

38




“Does not meet”) Instrumentation

QUALITATIVE

Provides a clear, concise, detailed

description of the instruments used

(e.g. observation

checklists/protocols, interview or

focus group discussion Handbooks).

Includes detailed information

regarding instrument origin,

reliability, and validity.

Provides a description of the

instruments associated with the

chosen research method and design

used (e.g. observation

checklists/protocols, interview or

focus group discussion Handbooks).

Lacks a clear description of the

instruments associated with the chosen

research method and design used (e.g.,

observation checklists/protocols,

interview or focus group discussion

Handbooks).

Provides clear, concise, detailed

description of process and

procedures for conducting an expert

review of instruments (e.g., provides

justification of reviewers being

credible – reviewers may include,

but not limited to NCU dissertation

team members, professional

colleagues, peers, or non-research

participants representative of the

greater population); clearly explains

use of a field test if practicing the


warranted.

Includes information regarding

instrument reliability and validity.

Describes process for conducting an

expert review of instruments (e.g.,

provides justification of reviewers

being credible – reviewers may

include, but not limited to NCU

dissertation team members,

professional colleagues, peers, or

non-research participants

representative of the greater

population); describes use of a field

test if practicing the administration

of the instruments is warranted.

Details missing regarding instrument

reliability and validity. Did not clearly

explain the process for conducting an

expert review of instruments (e.g.,

provides justification of reviewers

being credible – reviewers may

include, but not limited to NCU

dissertation team members,

professional colleagues, peers, or non-

research participants representative of

the greater population); and/or did not

clearly explain use of a field test if

practicing the administration of the

instruments is warranted.


39




Procedures QUALITATIVE Clearly described all the steps and

procedures for conducting the study

in replicable detail, including

participant recruitment and

notification, and informed consent.

IRB ethical practices are explained.

Described the procedures for

conducting the study in enough

detail to practically replicate the

study including participant

recruitment and notification, and

informed consent. IRB ethical

practices are noted.

Procedures are not clear or replicable.

Steps are missing and recruitment,

selection, and informed consent are

not established. . IRB ethical practices

are missing or unclear.



“Does not meet”) Data Collection and Analysis

QUALITATIVE

Provides in replicable detail a

description and process of the data

collected, coded/processed and

analyzed, and the process used in

gathering the data respective to the

chosen method and design.

Clearly demonstrates

alignment/mapping between the data


of the study.

Explains the coding process of data

linked to RQs. Clearly described the

transcription of data; the software

used for textual analysis (e.g. Nivo,

DeDoose), and justified manual

analysis by researcher. Explained the

use of a member check to validate

Provides a description of the data

collected and the processes used in

gathering the data.

Explains alignment between the data


of the study

Identified the coding process of data

linked to RQs. Described the

transcription of data; the software

used for textual analysis (e.g. Nivo,

DeDoose), and described manual

analysis by researcher. Described the

use of a member check to validate

data collected.

Did not clearly provide a description

of the data and the processes to collect

data. Lack of alignment between the

data collected and the research

questions of the study.

Did not clearly identify the coding

process of data linked to RQs; did not

clearly describe the transcription of

data; the software used for textual

analysis (e.g. Nivo, DeDoose), nor

justified manual analysis by

researcher. Missing or unclear

explanation of the use of a member

check to validate data collected

40


data collected.



“Does not meet”) Assumptions/Delimitations/

Limitations QUALITATIVE

Describes and explains the

assumptions/delimitations/limitations

inherent to the choice of method,

design, scope, and mitigating

processes to include, but not limited

to: threats to credibility,

trustworthiness, and transferability.

The limitations and delimitations are

described to the wider context of the

impact to these on the study.

Outlines the


to the choice of method and design.

Including key elements such as, but

not limited to: threats to credibility,

trustworthiness, and transferability.

Did not clearly outline the


(or has missing components) inherent

to the choice of method and design.

Did not include or lacking key

elements such as, but not limited to:

threats to credibility, trustworthiness,

and transferability.



“Does not meet”) Ethical Assurances Thorough explanation of compliance

with the standards for conducting

research as appropriate to the

proposed research design and aligned

to all IRB requirements is provided.

Compliance with the standards for

conducting research as appropriate to

the proposed research design and

aligned to IRB requirements is

described.

Discussion of compliance with the

standards for conducting research as

appropriate to the proposed research

design and is not aligned to IRB

requirements is missing or lacking.



“Does not meet”) Summary Chapter concludes with a clear,

organized, and concise summary of

key points discussed/presented in the

Chapter. No new information is

presented.

Chapter concludes with an organized

summary of key points

discussed/presented in the Chapter.

Chapter did not conclude with a

summary of key points from the

Chapter, elements are missing,

incomplete, and/or new information is

presented.

41





CHAPTER 4 Introduction A clear and concise overview of the

purpose of the research study is provided. This section includes an

organized flow of the chapter that is

clearly organized around the research

question(s)/hypotheses.

An adequate overview of the purpose

of the research study is provided.

The organization of the chapter is

described and is structured mainly

around the research


Overview of the purpose of the

research study is missing, lacking

clarify, and/or is overly lengthy;

containing unneeded discussions. The

organization of the chapter is missing

or unclear; including the organization

of the chapter around the research





Trustworthiness of data Trustworthiness of data reporting is clearly and concisely explained, along with any weaknesses to

interpretation of data collection or

analysis.

Note: Topics of discussion will

differ based on method. Qualitative

to include, but not limited to:

credibility, transferability,

dependability, and confirmability.

Quantitative to include, but not

limited to: validity, reliability, and

assumptions of statistical tests.

Trustworthiness of data is described.

Weaknesses to interpretation of data

collection or analysis are noted.

Note: Topics of discussion will

differ based on method. Qualitative

to include, but not limited to:

credibility, transferability,

dependability, and confirmability.

Quantitative to include, but not

limited to: validity, reliability, and

assumptions of statistical tests.

Trustworthiness of data is not

discussed, lacking, or unclear. Any

weaknesses to interpretation of data

collection or analyses are missing or

unclear.

Note: Topics of discussion will differ

based on method. Qualitative to

include, but not limited to: credibility,

transferability, dependability, and

confirmability. Quantitative to

include, but not limited to: validity,

reliability, and assumptions of

statistical tests.


42




Presentation of Results Results are presented clearly and logically in line with the research questions or hypotheses. The

structure of the analysis is clear,

organized, and flows for the reader

from the questions. Themes and

specific data points associated with

the aligned research questions are

clear and focused. Results are

presented without discussion or

interpretation. Specific themes are

aligned to the research questions and

any statistical significance or

relevance is highlighted. Tables and

figures are used and presented

clearly and appropriately.

Results are presented in line with the

research questions or hypotheses.

The structure of the analysis is

mostly organized and aligned with

the questions. Themes and data

points associated with the aligned

research questions are clear. Results

are presented with little to no

interpretation. Themes are aligned to

the research questions and any

statistical significance or relevance is

highlighted. Tables and figures are

used and presented appropriately.

Results, themes, and/or statistical

significance are not aligned to

research questions or hypotheses.

There is a lack of structure in analysis

and the steps for analysis are missing

or unclear. The structure of the

analysis is organized and aligned from

the questions. There is a presence of

interpretation and discussion in this

section of the results. There is an

absence of tables and figures or they

are present but not clear or

appropriate.




Evaluation of Findings A clear and concise explanation of what findings mean is provided. Discussion includes clearly

delineated connections to

theoretical/conceptual framework.

All findings are compared to relevant

and current scholarly literature.

Description of what findings mean is

included. Discussion includes

theoretical/conceptual framework

identified earlier. Most findings are

compared to the scholarly literature.

Brief report of what findings mean is

missing, unclear, or overly long.

Results are not clearly interpreted in

light of the theoretical/conceptual

framework. Little to no connection

back to the scholarly literature.



“Does not meet”) Summary Chapter concludes with a clear,

organized, and concise summary of

key points discussed/presented in the

Chapter. No new information is

presented.

Chapter concluded with an organized

summary of key points

discussed/presented in the Chapter.

Chapter did not conclude with a

summary of key points from the

Chapter, elements are missing,

incomplete, and/or new information is

presented.


43



“Does not meet”) CHAPTER 5

Introduction The reader is well-oriented to the

topic areas covered and the

organization of the review. All

major themes are clearly introduced

and explained.




presented. All major themes are

introduced and explained.




clearly. The chapter outline is unclear

or not provided.



“Does not meet”) Implications (discussion of

findings)

Findings are concisely and clearly

discussed by research question and

hypotheses. Clear and logical

conclusions are developed and

presented based on actual research

findings. Results are examined in the

context of the literature review,

problem, purpose, alignment with the

theory/conceptual framework, and

significance of the study. Includes

critical discussion of the implications

for practice (Applied) and, in the

context of the literature, how the

study builds to the existing body of

research (PhD).

Findings are discussed by research

question and hypotheses. Clear

conclusions are presented based on

actual research findings. Results are

framed in the context of the literature

review, problem, purpose, alignment

with the theory/conceptual

framework, and significance of the

study. Includes discussion of the

suggestions for practice (Applied)

and, in the context of the literature,

how the study builds to the existing

body of research (PhD).

Findings are not clearly aligned to

questions or hypotheses. Conclusions

are vague and unsubstantiated in study

findings. Over generalizations are

present. There is a lack of

organization of results to study

problem, purpose, theory/conceptual

framework, and significance. There is

lack or unclear discussion for

suggestions in practice (Applied) or

how the findings can contribute to the

existing research base of scholarly

literature (PhD).



“Does not meet”) Recommendations for

Research

All recommendations are clearly

drawn from study findings.

Recommendations for future

research considerations and practical

applications of the study are clearly

explained and framed in the

scholarly literature.

Recommendations are supported by

study findings. Future research

considerations and practical

applications of the study are

described, including some

connections to the scholarly

literature.

Study findings are not clearly tied to

recommendations. Recommendations

are vague or not appropriate.

Discussion for practical application of

findings and future research are

missing or lacking clarity.

44




“Does not meet”) Conclusions Strong, concise, conclusion including

summary of study,

importance of study, and the problem

addressed. Strong ‘take-home’

message of the study is presented and

clearly articulated to the

professional and academic

organizations as stakeholders for the

study findings.

Descriptive conclusion including

summary of study, importance of

study, and the problem addressed.

Discussion includes ‘take-home’

message of the study to the

professional and academic

organizations as stakeholders for the

study findings.

No clear conclusions are presented.

There is a lack of organization around

the importance of the study and how

the results respond to the study

problem, demonstrate significance,

and contribute to exciting literature or

practice.




BACK MATTER FOR DISSERTATION MANUSCRIPT Citations Not used for this criteria Current (no later than five years old

– unless seminal research), relevant,

scholarly literature is used

appropriately, all claims are

substantiated in the literature, there is

an absence of personal opinion,

avocation, bias, anthropomorphisms,

and informal language.

Numerous old (beyond five years)

resources used, claims are

unsubstantiated in the literature,

research bias is present and claims

based on personal opinion are

included. Frequent use of

anthropomorphisms and informal

language is noted.

Performance Component Meets (1) Does Not Meet (.01)



References Not used for this criteria References are aligned from the text

to the reference list and vice versa.

References reflect proper doi

notations and are documented

appropriately. All references exist

and all links are properly working.

References are not aligned from the

text to the reference list and vice

versa. References are not

documented properly to doi notations.

Some references do not exist and

some links are not properly working.

Performance Component Meets (1) Does Not Meet (.01)



45


Dissertation Manuscript – Grading

Each rubric has specific criteria outlined based on the submitted deliverable. There are criteria where the only acceptable values are ‘Meets’ and ‘Does Not Meet’. There are other substantive criteria allowing for ‘Exceeds’, ‘Meets’, and ‘Does Not Meet’. Students are graded (for A or B grades) based only on the criterion allowing the scoring of an ‘Exceeds’ for final course deliverables.

The grading criteria include an ‘A’, ‘B’, or ‘F’.

Any reconciled rubric scoring a single ‘Does Not Meet’ and the paper will be considered as not passing and the course grade must be marked as an ‘F’ grade and the student will be enrolled in the 8-week supplemental course DIS9904B/C.

If the number of Exceeds is greater than the number of Meets (FOR ONLY THOSE CRITERION ALLOWING FOR AN EXCEEDS SCORE) AND there have been no ‘Does Not Meet’ criteria. The student would receive an A.

If the number of Meets is greater than the number of Exceeds (FOR ONLY THOSE CRITERION ALLOWING FOR AN EXCEEDS SCORE) AND there have been no ‘Does Not Meet’ criteria. The student would receive a B.

FOR FINAL GRADING OF A COURSE DELIVERABLE AND DECIDING THE COURSE GRADE (only use the grading criteria below for determining final course deliverables):

Appendices Not used for this criteria Appendices are appropriate to the

manuscript including elements such

as, but limited to, survey tools and

instruments. There is alignment

between text and appendices.

Appendices lack organization, missing

components, or incomplete details

There is misalignment between text

and appendices.

Performance Component Meets Does Not Meet



46


TaskStream scoring has been designed to indicate if the final score is a whole number the student would earn a passing score (A or B).

If the final score results in a number with a decimal, the student has received a ‘Does Not Meet’ (.01) and the student will not pass. The decimal number indicates the number of ‘Does Not Meet’ criteria. The score for the final grade would be an ‘F’.

Version/Revision History:

Version 1.0: Published 10/10/2016

Doctoral Student Experience (DSE) Student Handbook Version ... · Dissertation course DIS9904A –...

Documents

Transcript of Doctoral Student Experience (DSE) Student Handbook Version ... · Dissertation course DIS9904A –...