1. Providing Quality Feedback to Dissertation Students
(Kristy) Welcome to “Providing Quality Feedback to Dissertation Students”. This is a very important webinar because as you know, feedback plays a large role in the overall student experience here at Walden University. I am very glad that you all could join us today.
Instructional Designer: Kristy Wake
Subject Matter Experts: Dr. Paula Dawidowicz, Dr. Jennifer Smolka, and Dr. Louis Milanesi
A Walden University Center for Faculty Excellence Tutorial

2. Welcome to Today’s Webinar!
Click the arrow to view panel
Adjust audio setup as needed
Ask questions throughout the webinar
Technical Support:
Evaluation link provided at end of webinar in the questions area
(Kristy) For those of you not familiar with the Go to Meeting functions, the red arrow on your control panel will expand and collapse the panel when selected. The audio area of the panel has two radio buttons. Typically I suggest participants use the built in mic and speakers on their laptop, but you can choose to call in via telephone as well.
There is a chat area to share comments and ask questions during the session. Please watch for the survey link at the end of the training in the chat area so you can evaluate this webinar. If you are having difficulties you can call the 800 number for technical support.
I am going to share a link in the chat area right now that you can choose to utilize. It will take you to eCampus where you can select a document titled “Dissertation Feedback Webinar Examples”. You may find this helpful later on in the training; however the examples will also be displayed on the webinar slides.
September 2012| Proprietary and Confidential | Page 1

3. Today’s Presenters
Jennifer Smolka, Ph.D.
Program Director, Ph.D. Program,
Richard W. Riley College of Education and Leadership
Paula Dawidowicz, Ph.D.
Ph.D. Education Research Coordinator
Ph.D., EdS Interim AEA Coordinator
Editor, JERAP
Richard W. Riley College of Education and Leadership
Kristy Wake, M.S.
Instructional Designer
Center for Faculty Excellence
(Kristy) My name is Kristy Wake and I am an instructional designer within the Center for Faculty Excellence. I will be presenting this webinar information to you along with Dr. Jennifer Smolka and Dr. Paula Dawidowicz.
We’ve split up the slides to present. I’ll be starting out, but will alternate with Jennifer and Paula, we’ll have some discussion, and then I’ll wrap things up.
September 2012| Proprietary and Confidential | Page 2

4. Recall that Feedback…
More than a Grade
Teaches students:
How well they are doing
How to improve
How to continue to learn
It Should…
Be personal, respectful, and specific
Encourage reflection and critical thinking
Acknowledge student’s experience
Can be Offered…
Announcements
Discussion Boards
Assignments
(Kristy) Let’s begin with a refresher of what most of you learned in other feedback modules. As you know, at Walden University we strive to provide quality online higher education. Many of our students appreciate the asynchronous online learning environment because of the flexibility it allows them when balancing school and their careers.
During the New Faculty Orientation or NFO you were required to complete a variety of ELMS modules. One of those pertained to providing feedback to students. This topic was also discussed in the Building Relationships with Students module.
Although we know you take it seriously, every once in a while it’s good to have a refresher of how to do it most effectively. As you know, quality feedback has to compensate for the lack of face to face interaction in online degree programs. Students should feel supported by their professors while in pursuit of their degree. Professors can provide this through feedback that goes beyond just a grade.
You may recall that feedback should teach students how well they are doing, how to improve, and how they can continue to learn. It needs to be personal, respectful, and specific. This means using the students’ names when providing feedback, acknowledging their experience, and pointing out specific areas in need of further development or refinement.
As you know, feedback can be addressed to the whole class via announcements, discussion boards, and assignments.
September 2012| Proprietary and Confidential | Page 3

5. Outcomes
Recognize your roles and responsibilities within the committee
Differentiate between quality vs. poor dissertation feedback
Provide timely feedback to students
Provide comprehensive feedback to students
Discuss the reasons why quality dissertation feedback is both beneficial for the student as well as the faculty member
(Kristy) Today we hope to build upon your existing knowledge and specifically address providing feedback to Dissertation Students. Upon Completion of today's webinar, you will be able to:
Recognize your roles and responsibilities within the committee
Differentiate between quality vs. poor dissertation feedback
Provide timely feedback to students
Provide comprehensive feedback to students
Discuss the reasons why quality dissertation feedback is both beneficial for the student as well as the faculty member
September 2012| Proprietary and Confidential | Page 4

6. Agenda Dissertation Structure Dissertation Committee
Dissertation Feedback
Policy for Timely Feedback
Time Management Techniques
Comprehensive Feedback
(Kristy) In order to meet our objectives, the following slides will address each of the topics shown on the screen. Please save your questions until the end of the training. However, there will be areas throughout the training where we’ll invite you to participate in some discussions.
Benefits of Quality Feedback
Review of Content Covered
Questions
September 2012| Proprietary and Confidential | Page 5

7. Dissertation Structure
Two Parts:
Students Are:
Developing Scholarly Writers
Developing experience
Passionate
Anxious
Goal Oriented
Transitional Phase
Guidance
The dissertation is a
Scholarly product:
Problem
Purpose
Research questions
Methodology
Data description
Results
Conclusions
(Kristy) In programs that are focused on practice instead of research, student coursework will culminate with a dissertation. Students will do rigorous work that makes an original contribution to their field. It is important that committee members review the rubric with the students at the beginning of the process and often to help them keep in mind what they’re trying to accomplish and how their success will be measured. If students have a sound understanding of what is expected of them, faculty can focus their feedback on helping them understand best how to meet those expectations.
Dissertation students generally have significant life experience, they are developing as scholarly writers, they are passionate but still anxious and uncertain regarding their dissertation topics, and they are goal oriented.
Faculty’s first goal should be to help students understand that, unlike the papers they submitted in the course work, the capstone project is an iterative process designed to show evidence of their competency as a beginning scholar-practitioner.  Keeping them focused on this will also be an iterative process.
September 2012| Proprietary and Confidential | Page 6

8. Committee Committee Chair Committee Member (2nd)
University Research Reviewer (3rd)
(Paula) The committee should work as a cohesive group consisting of a Chair, 2nd committee member, and University Research Reviewer (URR). The chair and 2nd committee member are approved based on the student’s prospectus, and the URR is appointed based on the student’s prospectus.
Let’s do a poll question. We ask that everyone participate and please rest assured that all the results are anonymous:
Insert Poll Question:
The Chair of the committee should send the student’s draft to the 2nd committee member…
A) As soon as a large section of the draft meets the chair’s approval
B) As soon as the chair completes the first review of the student’s first submission
C) Don’t know
(Allow participants sufficient time to answer, then close poll, and display results – presenter should comment on results. The correct answer is “B”)
The Chair serves as the leader of this group, although both core committee members work directly with the student on specific pieces of the proposal and dissertation. Once the committee is assembled the chair can set up a meeting with the 2nd committee member to discuss ground rules like how and when reviews of sections and chapters will be done, as well as an initial student timeline, design, and game plan. It is a best practice that the chair copies the 2nd committee member on all feedback to the student, as well as the 2nd member copies the chair on any feedback provided. The Chair and 2nd committee member will serve as either a content expert or methodology expert.
URRs are advisory committee members who have completed additional training to serve as representatives of the University. Therefore, they can permit or deny the dissertation from moving forward if they feel it does not meet set criteria – even if the committee members have stated full approval. The URR is trained to review every aspect of the dissertation, included methodology.
Each member of this committee has responsibilities related to the 14 day review process depending upon their role. While review can be done simultaneously, it should be done early in the 14 day period to help ensure that all members of the committee have sufficient time for review and the student ends up with quality feedback. This requires regular communication and planning.
September 2012| Proprietary and Confidential | Page 7

9. Methodology Expert Feedback
Research Design & Method
Methodology & Instruments
Sample/participants
Data Analysis
Presentation of Data
Primary on chapters 1, 3, 4, 5
(Kristy) Insert Poll Question:
The methodologist is only responsible for the methodology information in the doctoral study.
True
False
(Allow participants sufficient time to answer, then close poll, and display results – presenter should comment on results. The correct answer is “False” this is kind of a trick question though.)
(Paula) The methodological expert should provide feedback directed at the research design and research method. This includes the appropriateness for addressing the problem statement and research questions or for testing the stated hypothesis. It also includes reviewing the selected methodology and research instruments. They will want to ensure that the sample is appropriate for the study, the data and analysis is accurate, the presentation of the data and analysis is aligned with requirements, and the conclusions gathered from the analysis is correct. If methodological issues are not identified early on, this can be upsetting and cause a major delay in the students work. It is mandatory for the Methodological expert to read the dissertation in its entirety – even if only one or two chapters are related to the design and/or methods.
September 2012| Proprietary and Confidential | Page 8

10. Content Expert Feedback
Placement in literature
Social Change
Overall Significance
Primary on chapters 1, 2, 4, 5
Comprehensiveness of literature
(Paula) The content expert should provide feedback directed at the degree to which assumptions and limitations impact the research conclusions, as well as the comprehensiveness of the literature review and the theoretical base of the study if applicable, the potential for the research outcomes to influence positive social change, and the overall significance of the findings. It is mandatory for the Content expert to read the dissertation in its entirety.
September 2012| Proprietary and Confidential | Page 9

11. URR Role Advisory Member of Committee Highly Trained
Represents the University
Comprehensive Review/Feedback
Communicates with the Chair
(Paula) As stated, the URR acts as an advisory member of the committee and only communicates with the committee chair. A URR is assigned to the committee and will complete a comprehensive review of the dissertation. The purpose of the URR review is to make sure that the dissertation meets the graduate-level expectations of the university. All dissertations must receive approval from a URR before an oral conference can be scheduled. The feedback that is provided by the URR is sent to the Chair. The Chair and 2nd committee member may need to re-shape the feedback so that it incorporates both positive support and constructive criticism prior to sharing it with the student.
The URR is assigned to a committee when final prospectus approval is given at the time committee members submit their proposal rubrics. Optimal working conditions between the chair, 2nd member, and URR occur when the chair and 2nd member speak with the URR at the time of URR appointment using the prospectus as a talking point and keep the URR involved as a consultant whenever significant deviations from that original plan occur so that everyone can remain on the same page throughout the proposal and dissertation development process.
September 2012 | Proprietary and Confidential | Page 10

12. Dissertation Feedback
Relationship with Student
Refer Student to Rubric when Necessary
Provide comments in first person using “I”
Provide both Positive and Negative Feedback
If Major Revisions are Needed, Limit Feedback
Include a Summation
Be Polite – “Can you rephrase this so I can better understand…”
Offer suggestions rather than Criticism
(Kristy) While feedback needs to be relevant to the role of the specific committee member, it should still follow some basic standards. Here are some tips for providing dissertation feedback in general.
Establishing a strong rapport with the student is important, when needed refer them to the grading rubric, use “I” when commenting, balance positive and negative feedback, limit feedback on a draft that needs major work, include a summation page. Some examples for how to position feedback include “Can you rephrase this so I better understand it?”, and “I think this is…”
*Remind faculty to use the checklists to guide them in how to direct feedback
For a more detailed list of these tips please visit the CFE community and look for the document titled “Tips for providing quality feedback to Dissertation students”. I’ve also provided the link in the chat area and will it out after the session: Quality Feedback to Dissertation Students/Tips_for_Providing_Quality_Feedback_to_Dissertation_Students.pdf
September 2012| Proprietary and Confidential | Page 11

13. Comprehensive Feedback
All relative categories in the rubric should be commented upon
Should reflect the stage of development
(Kristy)
Comprehensive feedback means that all relative categories in the rubric are being touched upon. Faculty should not to focus on APA or grammar at this stage and try not to get too consumed with one area of the rubric. If the instructor notices numerous grammatical and/or APA errors they should mention it to the student in a general statement such as:
“Please review your entire paper for grammatical errors and ensure that your paper is in the correct APA format as I noticed several mistakes. The purpose of my review is centered around content and methodology but I strongly encourage you to spend more time editing those aspects of your paper as well.” Please note, though, that grammatical errors must be addressed before proposal and final dissertation approvals occur.
It should also reflect the stage of development.
September 2012| Proprietary and Confidential | Page 12

14. Quality Feedback
Quality Feedback – from a second member –
Thanks for the addition of the information in the review of literature.
I think there is a problem with the use of the word "relationship" in the questions. Relationship has a connotation of "correlation" and you are not doing this, you are looking for differences. In addition in the purpose/research questions section you want 2-3 research questions that subsume all the questions you have and then in Methodology you can break out the questions.
I think that in your table of justifying the questions you should refer back to the research questions.
Under data analysis, after seeing the research questions, I think you are going to have to do chi-square, it no longer becomes an option. Also under the description of each analysis I think you can put in some null and directional hypotheses particularly related to the demographics. This is not the same as the null hypothesis that you had before (which wasn't really a null), these are only specifically related to specific questions and demographics. I’m going to dialogue with the URR to see how we decide you’d best present it because there are v Again this is not the same as you had before that I told you to take out, what you had before was an overall study hypothesis which was not null at all and couldn't really be tested, these that I have included now only relate to some of the demographic questions. I hope you see the difference.
I would appreciate it is you would highlight new or significantly fixed information, as otherwise I have to go back and forth between screens to find what it added, etc. It would just be very helpful to me.
I think you are getting there, so if you consider what I have written here (clean up the questions, and info to data analysis) then you should be well on your way.
(Kristy) This is an example of quality feedback. Please Review this feedback and share ideas about what you think make it quality. (use of “I” statements, encourages them to think critically, does not focus on grammar or APA, Could be repacked using the hamburger format to give the student some positive support).
Paula or Jennifer, is there anything you’d like to add?
September 2012| Proprietary and Confidential | Page 13

15. Quality Feedback
(Kristy) In this example the committee member has used track changes to share feedback. It is comprehensive, and encourages the student to think more critically about her topic. This is an excellent example of quality feedback. Speaking as Walden Alumni, I always appreciated feedback in the form of track changes because then I knew exactly what aspect of the paper my professor was referring to.
**** Jennifer, is there anything you’d like to add?
Insert Poll Question: How many of you use track changes when providing feedback to students regarding their dissertation?
Less than 25%
25% - 50% of the time
50% - 75% of the time
75% or more
I always use track changes
(Allow participants sufficient time to answer, then close poll, and display results – presenter should comment on results. The correct answer is “I always use track changes”.)
***Jennifer will add that faculty should be using track changes 100% of the time as a best practice.
September 2012| Proprietary and Confidential | Page 13

16. Best Feedback Continued…
Hello Candidate, Thanks for getting what you had previously done on your prospectus to me this week. I hope I have given you lots of food for thought. I enjoyed our phone call conversation last week with you. It helps me understand you as a candidate and where we need to go in this project study. I’ll attach the rubric that you need to follow for the building of your prospectus along with a former student of mine from last semester whose work might give you guidelines as to what the end product will look like. Sometimes seeing someone else’s work helps. I have obtained permission from her to use her prospectus as an example. I understand the pressure you must be under finishing up on your job that you have now and preparing for your new position in January. In addition, you are taking an online class, which I understand to be very demanding. My recommendation would be to start and work on this task section-by-section. For next week, could you see about more information on the description of the problem? If this will change due to your new position in January and you feel you cannot provide the information needed, I’d then like to see the review of the literature section start to be filled in. This gives me information about what you are reading and helps me know how to guide your progress. If you’d like to chat in the near future about the use of participants, the problem statement, and discuss your theoretical foundations for your study, let me know. I’m here to help. Thanks again. Wishing you all the very best. Dr. Chair P.S. I will forward this on to Dr. Second Member just to keep him informed.
(Kristy) This wrap up feedback completes the package. It is personal, respectful, and it even mentions that the 2nd committee member will be copied on the in order to keep him informed. It is very positive and supportive toward the student. This is ideal.
****Jennifer will chime in to respond to faculty comments and questions
September 2012| Proprietary and Confidential | Page 13

17. Poor Feedback Example From: Committee Member
Regarding: Dissertation Proposal
“There is not much in the way of detail here, but a case study approach would be appropriate.  I'm OK with what she has done.”
(Kristy) The red text is the total feedback that was provided by a committee member regarding a dissertation proposal. This was the total sum of the feedback, despite having been asked for a thorough review, including track changes, and comments (as was provided by the other member). This is neither comprehensive nor appropriate.
****Jennifer will chime in to respond to faculty comments and questions
September 2012| Proprietary and Confidential | Page 13

18. Walden Faculty Policy
(Jennifer) As a committee member you have 14 days to review the draft, comment to it, and return it to the student. 
Remember that the student will nervously be waiting for you to return the draft to him or her. If you are doing an intensive read of a section/chapter for the first time and need to make extensive comments, you may need the full 14 days to give substantive feedback. However, if your student has just some minor changes that need to be reviewed, the expectation is that the draft will be returned much sooner than 14 days, although you do still have that 14 days to complete the dissertation review.
September 2012| Proprietary and Confidential | Page 14

19. Time Management Techniques
Spreadsheet or database with the names of students and the date they submit anything for review, AND the due date feedback should be sent to them
Some students find the 14 day wait time dissatisfactory. One professor states that she lets the student know that she has received the draft and when she expects to return it. She also suggests what the student should work on while she is doing the review (keep the students engaged).
Use of dissertation checklists
“Make a Date with the Paper”
(Jennifer) The majority of Walden Faculty is contributing, which means that some are balancing multiple teaching positions at a variety of universities. Others might have a full time career in addition to their responsibilities at Walden. It can be difficult to find the time to provide the quality feedback we’ve been discussing with such busy schedules. Luckily some of our veteran faculty has shared some of the techniques they use to manage their time in order to meet the feedback needs of their students. (Summarize Slide)
If you choose, you can certainly apply these techniques to your teaching, or perhaps you have or use others. The important thing is that you are adequately managing your time so that your students are getting the feedback they deserve.
September 2012| Proprietary and Confidential | Page 15

20. Benefits of Quality Feedback
Student experience at Walden is enhanced
Student is recognized for their skills
Student forms a stronger relationship with the faculty member
Student further develops as a scholar practitioner
Student has the opportunity to learn from their mistakes
(Kristy) A feature of attending Walden University is that students are provided with quality feedback. There are numerous benefits relating to this feature, some of which are displayed on the screen (read each benefit aloud). We’ve found that committee member who provide excellent feedback are recognized and offered more opportunities to participate in additional dissertation committees.
September 2012 | Proprietary and Confidential | Page 16

21. Student Testimonials
“Her positive and individual comments after each assignment were extremely rewarding and motivational…”
“She made me feel as if she were actually there. She had higher expectations and I learned more. I have more feedback/contact with her in this one course than all four previous courses combined. Her method of teaching made a huge difference in my interest level and desire to learn!”
(Kristy) Here are some student testimonials regarding feedback that has been shared with us by instructors. You can see that your feedback does in fact have a great impact on the overall student experience here at Walden. Positive feedback is greatly appreciated by our students.
“It was an honor to have X as my instructor. Her positive comments made me a better writer…”
September 2012| Proprietary and Confidential | Page 18

22. Student Testimonials
“I feel that they are the experts and we are learning; therefore, they should be giving input.”
“The feedback did not help me evaluate my work. She simply restated the directions and put a ‘You effectively….’ in front of them. I felt very isolated in this class, but this professor made no attempt to encourage me and make me feel at ease about whether or not I was on the right track…”
(Kristy) You can also see that our students have expectations for the level of quality feedback they hope to receive.
“…I would like to see not just positive feedback, but also places that I could improve…”
September 2012| Proprietary and Confidential | Page 19

23. Questions September 2012| Proprietary and Confidential | Page 20
(Kristy) At this point I’d like to allow for questions, and Jennifer, Paula, and I will do our best to answer them for you. Also, Lou if you’d like to jump in and answer any questions relevant to your role, you’re more than welcome.
September 2012| Proprietary and Confidential | Page 20

24. Review Dissertation Structure Dissertation Committee
Dissertation Feedback
Policy for Timely Feedback
Time Management Techniques
Comprehensive Feedback
(Kristy) In this webinar we discussed: (Read and summarize points on post its)
Benefits of Quality Feedback
Review of Content Covered
Questions
September 2012| Proprietary and Confidential | Page 21

25. Further Resources Self Paced Modules in ELMS: eCampus Job Aids:
Providing Feedback to Students (NFO)
Building Relationships with Students (NFO)
eCampus Job Aids:
Providing Quality Feedback to Dissertation Students (CFE Community)
(Kristy) If you have further questions or would like to discuss this topic in further detail please feel free to reach out to myself Jennifer, or Paula. Our Contact Information is shown on the screen. Once again thank you for your participation. Please help us to evaluate to effectiveness of this webinar by completing the survey in Qualtrix. You can access the survey via the link I have provided in the chat area (
Lastly, please keep an eye out for upcoming webinars which will be listed in the CFE newsletter. Moving forward you will not have to register in ELMS for these. Instead you’ll follow the link to GoToMeeting and sign up there.
Mention during first session: We will be offering a second session on 10am – 11am CST.
Thanks again everyone, have a great night.
September 2012| Proprietary and Confidential | Page 22

26. Presenter Contact Information
Kristy Wake, M.S.
Instructional Designer
Center for Faculty Excellence
Paula Dawidowicz, Ph.D.
Ph.D. Education Research Coordinator
Ph.D., EdS Interim AEA Coordinator
Editor, JERAP--
Richard W. Riley College of Education and Leadership
Jennifer Smolka, Ph.D.
Program Director, Ph.D. Program
(Kristy) If you have further questions or would like to discuss this topic in further detail please feel free to reach out to myself or Steve. Our Contact Information is shown on the screen. Once again thank you for your participation. Please help us to evaluate to effectiveness of this webinar by completing the survey in Qualtrix. You can access the survey via the link ( I have provided in the chat area. Have a great day everyone!
September 2012| Proprietary and Confidential | Page 23