Preparing New Doctoral Students for Academic Practice:
Cultivating New Students’ Scholarly Identity and Practice through Cognitive
Apprenticeship
Ann E. Austin
Michigan State University
Second International Conference on Preparing Doctoral Research Students and
Postdoctoral Researchers for Academic Careers
April, 2008
For those preparing for academic careers, the doctoral years are a period of socialization.
Students are learning what the academic career involves, the norms, values, and ethics embedded
in their disciplines, and the expectations and work habits that they will be expected to meet.
Scholars have offered definitions of socialization that illuminate the critical role it plays in
preparing newcomers for successful careers. Austin and McDaniels (2006) highlighted some of
these definitions in a recent chapter on graduate student socialization for faculty roles. In a wellcited definition, Merton, Reader, and Kendall (1957) defined socialization as “the processes
through which [a person] develops [a sense of] professional self, with its characteristic values,
attitudes, knowledge, and skills which govern [his or her] behavior in a wide variety of
professional (and extraprofessional) situations” (p. 287). Bragg (1976) explained that “the
socialization process is the learning process through which the individual acquires the
knowledge and skills, the values and attitudes, and the habits and modes of thought of the
society to which he belongs” (p. 3). More recently, Tierney (1997) asserted that socialization “is
an interpretive process involved in the creation—rather than the transmittal—of meaning” (p.6).
Graduate education becomes the period of anticipatory socialization (Van Maanen, 1976, 1983)
through which aspiring faculty learn about academic careers. Building on the recognition of the
important place of graduate education for preparing students for their future careers, Weidman,
Twale, and Stein (2001) offered a useful conceptual framework that acknowledged the
complexity of the socialization processes that occur during this time. Their model noted that
socialization occurs through formal and informal opportunities as doctoral students learn
knowledge and skills required for work in the field, interact with faculty and student peers, and
integrate into the activities of their fields.
While the graduate experience is a critical period for preparing future faculty and scholars, over
the past decade or so, scholars have identified some concerns and problems within the graduate
experience. Austin and McDaniels (2006) summarized concerns in several areas. First, doctoral
education often is characterized by a lack of systematic and developmentally organized
preparation experiences. That is, doctoral students observe and learn from their faculty, but often
perceive mixed messages concerning the priorities to which they should direct their attention,
particularly in regard to the relative balance they should give to teaching and research (Austin,
2002; Nyquist et al, 1999; Wulff, Austin, Nyquist, and Sprague, 2004). Additionally,
experiences through which graduate students learn about teaching and research are often not
1
organized in a way that plans for gradual development of ability and skills. Second, students
often do not receive clear explanation of expectations and explicit feedback about their
development (Austin, 2002; Lovitts, 2001, 2004; Nyquist et al. 1999; Wulff et al, 2004). Third,
graduate education often provides limited explicit attention to helping students understand the
nature of academic careers. While students may work on research teams or as teaching
assistants, opportunities to discuss and ask questions about academic work and careers are not
necessarily an explicit part of the socialization experience for many aspiring faculty (Austin,
2002, Golde and Dore, 2001; Wulff et al., 2004). Fourth, some students report concern that their
relationships with their advisors are not as close as they would like and, some students,
especially those in under-represented groups, wish they would experience a greater sense of
community (Anthony and Taylor, 2001, 2004; Lovitts, 2004). Fifth, graduate students report
little opportunity for “guided reflection,” in which they can consider, with the advisor, the
abilities and skills needed for an academic career and their progress in developing those qualities
and talents (Austin, 2002; Wulff et al., 2004).
Overall, then, research findings over the past decade have raised concerns about whether
doctoral students are adequately prepared for the academic profession, advised as effectively as
needed, presented with clear expectations, offered regular and explicit feedback, and supported
and guided in times of reflection. This paper suggests a theoretical perspective that can be
applied in doctoral education that may offer some practical response to some of these concerns.
Specifically, this paper presents cognitive apprenticeship as a framework for teaching and
learning in doctoral education that may enhance in significant ways the socialization process as
it occurs in graduate education.
Perspectives on the Theory of Cognitive Apprenticeship
Collins, Brown, and Holum (1991) described cognitive apprenticeship as “a model of instruction
that works to make thinking visible” (p. 1). They explained that, in the schooling process (they
were writing especially of K-12 education, but their ideas are relevant, I believe, at all levels),
students often cannot actually see how expert thinkers gain knowledge or use it. While the
school experience may convey knowledge, it is often less effective in helping students learn the
processes of acquiring, working with, and using knowledge. For example, students often are not
brought into the processes through which writers think about their goals, consider their
audiences, identify assumptions, and use these ideas as the background for their work. Thus,
Collins, Brown, and Holum argued that teachers need to think about the nature and meaning of
expert knowledge in their fields and how to teach it. They assert furthered that cognitive
strategies (the integration and use of knowledge and skills) are the key to expertise and that
apprenticeship is an effective way to help students develop such critically important cognitive
skills.
To explain their thinking, Collins, Brown, and Holum (1991) compared cognitive apprenticeship
to traditional apprenticeship in which novices learn such crafts as weaving, sewing, and
carpentry. First, while traditional apprenticeship concerns easily observable tasks, cognitive
apprenticeship involves the less easily observed processes of thinking. In such thinking tasks as
reading, writing, and problem-solving, the teacher has the challenge of making the processes
involved more explicit and visible—in other words, making the tacit, explicit. Learners need to
have the relevant cognitive and meta-cognitive processes brought explicitly to their attention—
2
that is, they need to see how experts approach their thinking about how to understand and
address a problem.
Second, traditional apprenticeship typically happens in the context of real-world situations—
cooking a meal or building a house, for example. However, cognitive apprenticeship involves
work that is often separate from the situation in which it will be used (i.e., learning to write a
literature review in class is separate from the work that may occur several years later to prepare a
dissertation proposal). Thus, according to Brown and colleagues (1991), teachers need to situate
the abstract tasks…. in contexts that make sense to students” (p. 3).
Similarly, they explained that traditional apprenticeship experiences usually involve skills that
are directly related to a task at hand (e.g., stitching is an integral part of a sewing project).
However, school-related tasks must be learned with attention to transferability to a variety of
diverse situations. They must learn how to adapt skills and abilities to diverse new situations
(e.g., writing skills may be used in a variety of kinds of papers).
The application of the theoretical notion of cognitive apprenticeship involves several key steps:
modeling, coaching, scaffolding, articulation and reflection, and promoting transfer of learning
(Collins, Brown, and Holum, 1999; Eisen, 2008). Each step is explained briefly below:

Modeling: In the modeling step, the master teacher demonstrates the task or work so that
the learner can conceptually understand the task in its wholeness or entirety as well as
see the steps involved. The modeling needs to reveal the procedures as well as the “tricks
of the trade” or techniques that aid in accomplishing the work. A teacher is likely to offer
explicit description of each part of the process of doing the work, thus providing the
learner (the apprentice) with both a conceptual overall understanding of the work and a
detailed analysis of its parts.

Coaching: The teacher provides coaching throughout the learning experience in many
different ways. The teacher may help students select parts of the work to do (with the
student taking on more pieces of the task as the learning advances), provide suggestions
or hints, analyze and diagnose problems, offer feedback, and identify and target
weaknesses for correction or practice.

Scaffolding: This part of the teaching process requires the teacher to guide the apprentice
by helping the student move to doing increasingly more difficult parts of the work. The
teacher may do some of the work at first while pushing the student to take on those parts
that he or she is ready to do; over time the teacher will encourage the student to continue
to stretch and take on additional parts of the work himself or herself. In education,
scaffolding may involve providing specific step-by-step directions, checklists,
assessment rubrics, or examples of excellent or poor work (Eisen, 2008).

Articulation and Reflection: In this part of the process, students learn “to articulate their
knowledge, reasoning, or problem-solving processes” (Brown, Collins, and Holum,
1991, p. 10). The teacher helps students learn to ask questions of themselves and their
work and learn to articulate the processes they are thinking through as they engage in
problem-solving connected with their work. The process may also involve comparing
one’s own process of thinking with that of others, including classmates.
3

Promoting Transfer of Learning: In this part of the apprenticeship process, the students
are guided to consider how the thinking processes they are learning can be applicable in a
range of situations and with various problems. For example, students will be encouraged
by a teacher to learn to formulate their own problems and questions and to apply their
writing skills to a range of writing situations.
In addition to the methods and steps involved in cognitive apprenticeship, this approach to
teaching and learning also recognizes the importance of the learning context in promoting
motivation and supporting learning (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Svinicki, 2004; Wenger, 1999).
Theories of situated learning emphasize that learning is enhanced when students are actively
engaged in the learning process (not only receiving information passively). Students need to
make their learning meaningful to themselves. They also are supported in their learning when
they are part of a “community of practice” in which they are engaged with others with whom
they are discussing aspects of the expertise they are developing and in which expertise involves
being engaged in practice. Collaborative learning processes enhance the quality of the
community of practice and strengthen the learning experience for participants.
Applying the Theory of Cognitive Apprenticeship to Doctoral Education
As a researcher who both studies doctoral education and teaches in a graduate program in
Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education, I am well aware of the challenges to developing
effective learning experiences for students. I know and research the specific critiques of doctoral
education identified in the literature and explained earlier in the paper, and I also know more
directly the particular challenges that my own students experience. Thus, in the required firstsemester doctoral seminar that I have been teaching for about a decade, I have tried to be guided
in my teaching by relevant theory, research, and lessons from practice (my own and others). I
believe the cognitive apprenticeship approach offers very useful implications for addressing
some of the critiques of doctoral education and for enhancing the doctoral learning experience.
Specifically, I think using a teaching approach informed by cognitive apprenticeship helps
provide doctoral students more systematic preparation, more focused guidance and scaffolding,
more explicit feedback, and enhanced preparation for participating in a community of scholars.
Case Example of Cognitive Apprenticeship Theory in Relation to Doctoral Education:
First-Semester Seminar in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education
In this section, I briefly describe a course I teach for first-year doctoral students in Higher,
Adult, and Lifelong Education and show five ways in which this course is informed by cognitive
apprenticeship theory. The section begins with an overview of the course and its purposes.
Designed as the first course for doctoral students in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education
Program (HALE), this course has two primary purposes:
1) To increase students’ familiarity with history, key concepts, issues, questions,
contemporary concerns, and literatures relevant to scholars and practitioners of higher
and adult education. We engage in a seminar around some central questions facing all
those involved in higher education: What are the purposes and roles of higher education
institutions in society? How is American higher education organized? What challenges
4
and societal expectations face higher education institutions today, in the U.S. and
internationally? How have the purposes and roles of higher education institutions
changed over time? Many believe that, currently, higher education in the U.S. and in
other countries as well is engaged in a time of significant transformation and challenge.
We explore that perspective in order to help each participant develop a thorough
understanding of how his or her work in higher education is situated in historical and
current contexts.
2) To help entering doctoral students enhance their abilities in the areas of critical reading,
critical thinking and analysis, writing, and inquiry. We focus on various aspects of the
initial process of engaging in research: framing problems, developing research questions,
and conducting literature reviews. We also focus on approaches to scholarly writing in
our field, strategies for inviting and providing peer review and feedback, and skills useful
in analytical reading of scholarly work.
Doctoral students in the HALE program typically bring considerable professional experience,
observation, and reflection to the course. Thus, the seminar encourages students to think about
the relationships between practice and theory, and to find specific ways to draw from and build
on their professional expertise. At the same time, the course encourages participants to deepen
their knowledge and understanding of scholarly literatures and theoretical perspectives relevant
to study of and practice within postsecondary education. This focus on literature and theory is
intended to inform participants' professional practice as well as their ability to work within and
contribute to the processes of scholarly inquiry in the field of postsecondary education.
Successful doctoral students develop a sense of their own goals and are motivated by questions
to which they seek answers through their study, professional practice, interactions with
colleagues and faculty, and on-going habits of inquiry.
The seminar is organized to help students develop and learn in the following areas:

Develop understanding of the history of American higher education, how postsecondary
education is organized as a sector and within organizations, and key issues and
challenges confronting leaders and professionals in postsecondary education today.
Additionally, we seek to gain some initial understanding of the differences and
similarities between the American higher education system and the systems in other
countries.

Develop ability to identify and frame problems and questions within the field of
postsecondary education. The study of higher and adult education draws on theories and
conceptual frameworks from a variety of disciplines. As we examine selected studies
concerning key problems, we explore how such theories and conceptual approaches
frame and guide the way problems are presented and examined.

Become familiar with library and web-based resources relevant to professional practice
and scholarly inquiry within higher and adult education.

Strengthen the ability to read, think, discuss, and write about issues in postsecondary
education in a thoughtful, analytical, and critical manner.
5

Develop specific strategies for critiquing and improving one’s own and others' writing.

Develop expertise in reading thoughtfully, analyzing, and critiquing research articles and
reports.

Become familiar with HALE faculty members and their areas of interest and expertise.

Develop a sense of one’s individual interests and scholarly/professional questions and
ways in which to develop a program that addresses those interests and expands one’s
scholarly and professional expertise.

Prepare a mini-research proposal that includes fundamental elements of a statement of
purpose, a critical review of the literature, a conceptual/theoretical framework, and a plan
for research methodology and strategies.
I discuss below five practices in my approach to teaching this course which are informed by and
illustrate an application of cognitive apprenticeship theory in doctoral education.
Practice 1: Making Explicit the Challenges, Responsibilities, and Opportunities of Doctoral
Education
As discussed previously, research findings raise concerns about whether doctoral students are
introduced to the academic profession as fully as they should be, advised as effectively as
needed, presented with clear expectations, and offered regular and explicit feedback. I have
taken such findings to heart in how I have designed and how I teach the first-semester seminar. I
am committed to helping new students make a productive transition into doctoral education,
begin to develop identities as scholars, and deepen their abilities as analytical thinkers and
writers. I try to ensure that students have a significant and engaging intellectual experience, that
they develop an understanding of the history of higher education and become acquainted with
some of the most pressing philosophical and practical issues in the field, that they are guided to
learn and practice scholarly conventions of writing and analysis, and that they learn, through
experience in writing groups, how collegial peers critique and support each other’s work in
productive ways. In short, I want them to succeed as doctoral students, and thus, I want to make
explicit a number of the important ideas, ways of thinking, habits, and abilities that are
associated with productive scholarly work in our field and with success as a doctoral student.
Providing such an introduction to doctoral education as well as to a scholarly career is one part
of providing an apprenticeship experience for these prospective faculty, administrators, and
scholars.
Practice 2: Guiding Students through the Process of Creating a “Mini-Research Proposal”
One of the major outcomes of doctoral education is for students to learn to conduct research.
Sometimes, however, students can move successfully through courses, and even experience
assistantships in which they work with faculty members, without fully learning how to frame
their own questions and design and conduct their own studies. In such situations, the doctoral
dissertation is a daunting and often lonely challenge. It is this kind of concern that an approach
based on cognitive apprenticeship theory helps students to address. I have designed the seminar
6
to help students begin to experience engagement in inquiry from the start of their doctoral
experience. To accomplish this work, we explore how to frame a problem and identify
researchable questions, how to use library and electronic resources to conduct a literature
review, how to write a compelling literature review, and the meaning of research paradigms. The
learning outcome from this study is what I call a “mini-research proposal.”
As suggested by cognitive apprenticeship theory, each step in this process is scaffolded with
guidance, class work, and feedback. I offer examples of strong proposals so that students can see
the conceptual “whole” of the type of work they are learning to do. In class, students identify
“tensions” in the literature and in practice that may suggest research problems and research
questions. Informed by cognitive apprenticeship theory, I model the process of moving from
issues to well-framed research problems and questions by talking aloud my own thinking
process. With their own work, students write multiple drafts of their proposals, moving from
initial ideas to solid products. In a form of coaching, I provide feedback on each draft and ask
students to work in writing groups in which they practice giving and receiving feedback to each
other. Each student also meets individually with me about three-quarters of the way through the
process to receive detailed feedback, which is another form of scaffolding and coaching. The
process concludes with both a written product and a conference-like presentation of the proposal
to the class. Student feedback on this process has been very positive.
Practice 3: Coupling Purposefulness with Flexibility
My ability to model, scaffold, and coach requires both a sense of purposefulness and a
willingness to be flexible. I believe that learning activities are most effective if, as a teacher, I
have carefully thought through the learning outcomes that I am seeking to help the students to
learn. Thus, I always spend considerable time thinking through each class session, taking into
account the particular students, the conversations I have had with them about their learning, my
observations of what is going well and not as well in our learning process, and their questions
and uncertainties. At the same time I am committed to planning, I am also committed to being
willing to adapt when needed to enhance the learning experience—sometimes by making
adjustments to the syllabus or adjustments within a class session. I use short written reflections
regularly throughout the semester, asking students to jot down what is going well with their
learning and what problems they are experiencing or questions they have.
I also ask students to respond anonymously in writing to a set of questions that I pose midsemester about the course, their learning, and how I can be of most help to their learning.
Specifically, I ask such questions as: 1) What is going well? What should we continue doing to
help your learning? 2) What is not going well for you or what is problematic for you? 3) What
do you understand that you did not understand before? 4) What has been the most surprising or
hardest aspect of this learning experience for you? 5) What suggestions do you have for ways in
which the course, or I, can better support your learning? I always summarize and discuss the
results with the class, indicating adjustments that seem appropriate in response to the reflections
and inviting students to make additional suggestions. These practices also encourage students to
engage in articulation and reflection on their own learning, which are elements of a cognitive
apprenticeship type of learning experience.
7
Practice 4: Cultivating a Learning Community of Scholars
Learning through cognitive apprenticeship is also enhanced by participation in a community of
scholars and by experiencing situated learning. Thus, my teaching practice involves a
commitment to the concept of learning communities as effective environments for fostering
excellence in learning. At the start of the course, I discuss with students the concept of a learning
community. I believe that a learning community requires each participant (student and teacher)
to assume responsibility for the quality of the learning environment. A learning community
requires that each participant convey respect for, appreciation of, and commitment to the
learning of each of the other participants. I tell students that I promise to work as hard as I can to
contribute my expertise as well as my questions to the learning process, and that each of them
also has the responsibility to bring his or her expertise and questions. A learning community of
scholars requires that together we create a vibrant, respectful, yet challenging environment in
which ideas can be examined, questions framed, different opinions voiced, perspectives
challenged, and discoveries nurtured. As scholars, we have the responsibility to ask questions, to
hold ourselves and each other to standards of excellence, and to deepen our abilities to think
analytically. Throughout my courses, I often remind students of our mutual responsibilities as
members of a learning community and invite them to offer their own visions of the environment
we can create together. I explain to them that one responsibility of a scholar is to be a colleague,
which involves supporting and critiquing in productive and respectful ways the work of other
scholars. I have found that students respond eagerly to the collegial responsibility suggested by
the learning community metaphor; they support each other and engage diligently and with
excitement in our mutual endeavors. This approach to encouraging students to understand their
responsibility to the learning community helps them develop their own sense of who they are as
scholars. I see this process as part of scaffolding the apprenticeship experience and development
of each student.
I note that this concept is directly and explicitly related to my commitment to support the
learning of a diverse student body. The HALE entering cohort is always diverse in many ways—
students’ professional and educational backgrounds; their nationalities, races and ethnicities;
their ages and gender; and their confidence in the likelihood of success in doctoral education.
My commitment to developing a sense of community is especially designed to support all
students and to help each student understand that his or her scholarly and professional growth
will be enriched through respectful interaction with the other colleagues in the class. I want
students to leave the course with a commitment not only to their own continuing progress, but to
being conscientious colleagues with others with whom they are studying.
To accomplish these purposes, I organize students into writing groups, discuss with them how to
give and receive productive feedback, require students to provide regular verbal and written
feedback to their writing partners, and urge them to begin the process of identifying colleagues
with whom they might be able to develop a long-term partnership for reading and critiquing each
others’ work, and holding each other accountable for moving forward in the program. We have
had a number of instances of colleague groups that have formed in the Proseminar and continued
throughout the students’ progress toward degree completion. The encouragement of on-going
peer writing groups is one way in which I try to promote the notion of transfer of learning, that
is, the idea that the work habits and ways of thinking we are developing are relevant beyond this
single course.
8
Practice 5: Creating an Environment of High Expectations and High Support
My teaching is guided by my belief that high expectations coupled with high support contribute
to an effective learning situation. I tell students at the start of the course that I expect and believe
that we are each striving for excellence in our thinking and work. I often add that graduate
education, good thinking, and effective writing require hard work and serious commitment. I
expect that students bring to their courses and their whole educational experience an eagerness to
engage in serious work and a willingness to demand a lot of themselves as they strive to fulfill
their intellectual, scholarly, and professional goals. I add that I have the same expectations for
myself and will do my best to meet their high expectations, as well as my own, for my work as a
teacher and advisor. The other part of the equation, however, is the coupling of high expectations
with high support. I like to be friendly, open, and accessible with my students and advisees. We
usually come to know each other quite well, creating relationships of mutual respect. For
example, creating relationships characterized by high expectations and high support can mean
that a student in the seminar and I may spend the first half hour of an appointment discussing
whether a child care issue has been resolved in a way that enables the student to both protect
time to do her course work and also be true to her desire to be a good parent—and my sharing
some of my own experiences in balancing professional and personal aspects of my life. This
high expectations/high support approach to advising may also mean firm conversation with a
student to explain that a carelessly written paper does not convey to a reader the precision of
thinking or the commitment to professional excellence that the student surely wishes to express.
I feel my role as teacher is to help students pursue and achieve the excellence to which they
aspire (and sometimes this means helping them envision themselves as able to achieve such
excellence) and simultaneously to offer them the support, encouragement, and caring that
provide the scaffolding for striving for and achieving high goals. The process of coupling high
expectations with high support is part of my commitment as a teacher to modeling, scaffolding,
and coaching.
Concluding Comments
The approach described to the teaching of this first-year seminar—an approach that illustrates
the application of cognitive apprenticeship theory to doctoral education—has had good results
Students report gains in self-confidence as scholars and demonstrate significant gains in their
ability to conceptualize important problems in the field and frame relevant research questions.
The evaluative comments of two students illustrate impact of the sort that cognitive
apprenticeship theory would suggest:
In speaking about one aspect of the course, learning to collaborate as scholars, one student
comments on the teacher’s efforts to model: “The teacher talked about collaboration directly,
but also modeled behaviors—ways of responding to people, ways of presenting one’s own ideas
so that the door is open to other ideas, ways of bringing up contradictory evidence for mutual
consideration instead of blunt disagreement.”
Another student indicated the development of new ways of thinking and more self-confidence in
these new scholarly habits: “I did not know what to expect in my writing assignments as a
scholar, and the course provided me a wonderful opportunity to express my thoughts in class
9
relating to my experiences and my understanding of the literature, and then to convert the
thoughts into writing.”
Cognitive apprenticeship is a theory about how learning occurs and specific ways in which
teaching practice can enhance the learning process. This theory seems very useful in explaining
aspects of how doctoral students learn to think as scholars. It also offers specific strategies for
use by those who have the privilege of preparing the next generation of faculty and scholars. The
case example presented in this paper suggests ways that cognitive apprenticeship theory can be
used to inform teaching and learning in a doctoral program in higher education. Other research
and writing could usefully explore the implications that this theory of teaching and learning
offers in relation to graduate study in diverse disciplines.
References
Antony, J. S., and Taylor, E. (2004). Theories and strategies of academic career socialization:
Improving paths to the professoriate for black graduate students. In D.H. Wulff, and A.E. Austin
(eds.), Paths to the Professoriate: Strategies for Enriching the Preparation of Future Faculty
(pp. 92-114). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Antony, J. S., and Taylor, E. (2001). Graduate student socialization and its implications for the
recruitment of African American education faculty. In W. G. Tierney (ed.), Faculty Work in
Schools of Education: Rethinking Roles and Rewards for the Twenty-first century (pp. 189-209).
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Austin, A. E. (January/February, 2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate
education as socialization to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73 (2), 94122.
Austin, A. E., & McDaniels, M. (2006). Preparing the professoriate of the future: Graduate
student socialization for faculty roles. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of
theory and research, Vol. XXI (pp. 397-456). Netherlands: Springer.
Bragg, A. K. (1976). The Socialization Process in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: The
American Association of Higher Education.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making things visible.
American Educator: The Professional Journal of the American federstaion of Teachers, 15(3):
6-11, 38-46.
Eisen, J. (March, 2008). Cognitive apprenticeship in the classroom: Helping students develop
expertise. Presentation at Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Golde, C.M., & Dore, M. (2001). At cross purposes: What the experiences of today’s doctoral
students reveal about doctoral education. Philadelphia, PA: Pew Charitable Trusts.
10
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from
doctoral study. Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield Publishers.
Lovitts, B.E. (2004). Research on the structure and process of graduate education: Retaining
students. In D.H. Wulff, and A.E. Austin (eds.), Paths to the Professoriate: Strategies for
Enriching the Preparation of Future Faculty (pp. 115-136). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merton, R., Reader, G., and Kendall, P. (1957). The Student Physician. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Nerad, M., and Cerny, J. (1999). From rumors to facts: Carer Outcomes of English Ph.D.s:
Results from the Ph.D.s—Ten Years Later Study. Council of Graduate Schools Communicator,
XXXII (7), 1-11.
Nyquist, J. D., Manning, L., Wulff, D. H., Austin, A. E., Sprague, J., Fraser, P.K. Calcagono, C.,
and Woodford, B. (1999). On the road to becoming a professor: The graduate student
experience, Change, 31(3), 18-27.
Svinicki, M. D. (2004). Learning and motivation in the postsecondary classroom. Bolton, MA:
Anker.
Tierney, W.G. (1997). Organizational socialization in higher education. Journal of Higher
Education 68(1): 1-16.
Van Maanen, J. (1976). Breaking in: Socialization to work. In R. Dubin (ed.), Handbook of
Work, Organization, and Society. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing.
Van Maanen, J. (1983). Doing new things in old ways: The chains of socialization. In J.L. Bess
(ed.), College and University Organization: Insights from the Behavioral Sciences. New York:
New York University Press.
Weidman, J. C., Twale, D. J., & Stein, E. L. (2001). Socialization of graduate and professional
students in higher education—A perilous passage? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.
28 (3). Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human
Development.
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wulff, D. H., & Austin, A. E. (Eds.). (2004). Paths to the professoriate: Strategies for enriching
the preparation of future faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wulff, D. H., A. E. Austin, J. D. Nyquist, & J. Sprague. (2004).The development of graduate
students as teaching scholars: A for-year longitudinal study. In Wulff, D. H., & Austin, A. E.
11
(Eds.). (2004). Paths to the Professoriate: Strategies for Enriching the Preparation of Future
Faculty. (pp. 46-73). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Please address correspondence to:
Dr. Ann E. Austin
Professor and Mildred B. Erickson Distinguished Chair
of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education
417 Erickson Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
Tel: 517-355-6757
Email: asustin@msu.edu
12