Analyzing Theories, Conceptual Frameworks, and Research Methods in EdD Dissertations

Review of Dissertations from an Online Asynchronous Learning Design and Technologies Educational Doctoral Program

“…These analyses have been reported from programs that address special education (Walker & Haley-Mize, 2012), curriculum and instruction and teacher education (Kozikoğlu & Senemoğlu, 2016;Ma et al, 2018), educational leaders (Archer & Hsiao, 2023;Gilliham et al, 2019;Zambo, 2014), and educational technology (Arslan- Ari et al, 2018;Dawson & Kumar, 2014;Kumar et al, 2022). The contexts in EdD dissertation research have predominantly consisted of K-12 settings (Dawson & Kumar, 2014;Durak et al, 2016;Gilliham et al, 2019;Kumar et al, 2022) followed by postsecondary settings (Dawson & Kumar, 2014;Gilliham et al, 2019;Kumar et al, 2022). Dissertations have also engaged adult participants (Nelson & Coorough, 1994) as educators through professional development and teacher induction programs (Ma et al, 2018), as well as K-12 students or groups (Ari et al, 2022;Ma et al, 2018).…”

“…As part of our ongoing program evaluation, we have not conducted a comprehensive and systematic review of dissertation research within our LDT program since its inception. This study follows the call from Kumar et al (2022) "to clearly distinguish how such research is fulfilling the purpose of the education doctorate, an online doctoral program's mission and goals, and the needs of the professionals enrolled in EdD programs" (p. 727) and Priest's (2001) goals of accountability and improvement for program evaluation. The purpose of this study was to understand how and in what ways theory, research design, and methodology were applied in our students' reports of research.…”

“…Previously reported analyses of education doctorate dissertations have been conducted through content analyses (Archer & Hsiao, 2023;Dawson & Kumar, 2014;Durak et al, 2016;Kumar et al, 2022;Nelson & Coorough, 1994;Walker & Haley-Mize, 2012;Walser & Trevisan, 2015;Zambo, 2014) and document analyses (Gilliham et al, 2019;Kozikoğlu & Senemoğlu, 2016;Ma et al, 2018). These analyses have been reported from programs that address special education (Walker & Haley-Mize, 2012), curriculum and instruction and teacher education (Kozikoğlu & Senemoğlu, 2016;Ma et al, 2018), educational leaders (Archer & Hsiao, 2023;Gilliham et al, 2019;Zambo, 2014), and educational technology (Arslan- Ari et al, 2018;Dawson & Kumar, 2014;Kumar et al, 2022). The contexts in EdD dissertation research have predominantly consisted of K-12 settings (Dawson & Kumar, 2014;Durak et al, 2016;Gilliham et al, 2019;Kumar et al, 2022) followed by postsecondary settings (Dawson & Kumar, 2014;Gilliham et al, 2019;Kumar et al, 2022).…”

“…Historically, Nelson and Coorough (1994) reported only a small number of EdD dissertations employed qualitative designs. However, more recently, qualitative and mixed methods designs have become common (Gilliham et al, 2019;Kozikoğlu & Senemoğlu, 2016;Kumar et al, 2022;Walker & Haley-Mize, 2012). EdD dissertations have relied on descriptive methods (Dawson & Kumar, 2014;Kozikoğlu & Senemoğlu, 2016;Nelson & Coorough, 1994) and evaluative purposes (Belzer & Ryan, 2013;Dawson & Kumar, 2014), and dissertation studies were more likely to report descriptive statistics (Durak et al, 2016;Walker & Haley-Mize, 2012).…”

“…The uses of theory in EdD dissertations, however, have been analyzed and reported less. In addition, Zambo (2014) asserted that the uses of theory in EdD dissertations have been unclear, while more recently, Kumar et al (2022) reported that theory in their educational technology students' dissertations was often used to conceptually frame a study and support the design of study interventions. Theories of learning, such as constructivism and andragogy (Durak et al, 2016;Kumar et al, 2022;Zambo, 2014), motivation (Kumar et al, 2022;Zambo, 2014), technology integration, use, and adoption (Kumar et al, 2022), and distance education (Kumar et al, 2022) have been reported.…”