Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Dr. Jill Alexa Perry, Duquesne University Dr. Debby Zambo, Arizona State University Dr. David Imig, University of Maryland Susan Wunder, University of.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Dr. Jill Alexa Perry, Duquesne University Dr. Debby Zambo, Arizona State University Dr. David Imig, University of Maryland Susan Wunder, University of."— Presentation transcript:

1 Dr. Jill Alexa Perry, Duquesne University Dr. Debby Zambo, Arizona State University Dr. David Imig, University of Maryland Susan Wunder, University of Nebraska Lincoln The Education Doctorate, Grassroots Changes, and Future Aspirations: The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate’s Work to Reinvasion the EdD BELMAS 2013 Copyright 2014 by the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate, Inc. (CPED). The foregoing material may be used for noncommercial educational purposes, provided that CPED is acknowledged as the author and copyright holder. Any other use requires the prior written consent of CPED.

2 The Problem  In the long history of the debate between the Ed.D. and the Ph.D., the conversation rarely left the walls of academia (Brown, 1966, 1991; Clifford & Guthrie, 1988; Dill & Morrison, 1985; Freeman, 1931; Levine, 2007; Shulman, Golde, Bueschel, & Garabedian 2006).  Since its inception, no group actively looked at the work of practitioners or sought to redesign the EdD as a true professional preparation degree in education.

3 The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED)  The first action oriented effort in an 80 year history seeking to distinguish and define the EdD across many facets Administration, Teacher Preparation, Higher Education, Organizational Leadership  A consortium of 56 institutions that are critically examining the doctorate in education through dialog, collaboration, experimentation and evaluation  A design experiment (We don’t have all the answers…yet.)  A national network of institutions, SOE, faculty, student-practitioners, graduate scholarly practitioners  It is a grassroots organization - is member-run

4 2006: Shulman et al 2007: Why are we doing this? 2008: Beginning change-- Design concepts 2009: New Cohorts/ programs, Ed.D. Definition & 6 Working Principles 2010: $700K FIPSE recognition & expansion to 56 members & Definition of Design Concepts 2013: FIPSE Evidence- Institutional, Programmatic & Individual Change Other Evidence: Books, articles, presentations Nationally & Internationally 2014 & Beyond: Organizational Structures, IES Grants Improvement Science Multiple Agendas-  IMPACT Reclaiming Redesigning Refashioning Phase I (25 members) Phase II (56 members) Phase III + 47 interested What has CPED accomplished in 6 years?

5 CPED Principles The Professional doctorate in education:  Is framed around questions of equity, ethics, and social justice to bring about solutions to complex problems of practice.  Prepares leaders who can construct and apply knowledge to make a positive difference in the lives of individuals, families, organizations, and communities.  Provides opportunities for candidates to develop and demonstrate collaboration and communication skills to work with diverse communities and to build partnerships.  Provides field-based opportunities to analyze problems of practice and use multiple frames to develop meaningful solutions.  Is grounded in and develops a professional knowledge base that integrates both practical and research knowledge, that links theory with systemic and systematic inquiry.  Emphasizes the generation, transformation, and use of professional knowledge and practice.

6 Design Features  Scholarly Practitioner  Signature Pedagogy  Inquiry as Practice  Laboratories of Practice  Dissertation in Practice

7 FIPSE Research Questions 1. What has been CPED’s impact on doctoral preparation? 2. What do the Professional Practice Doctorates look like and how do they differ from what was offered before? 3. How did the college/school make these changes? 4. What are the lessons learned?

8 Data and Analytical Process DATA: We have 19 cases (2 more coming) and 3 surveys (student, faculty, researcher that had both closed- and open-ended items). Analysis of all measures aimed at ensuring credibility/trustworthiness/validity/reliability ANALYSIS OF CASES: Focused on finding commonalities and complexities within and across CPED institutions (Stake, 2006; Yin, 2009). Analysis of cases performed f-2-f and virtually. Layers to the cross-cases analysis process:  Cases have been read and reread by 3 researchers then examined for answers to RQs  Matrices have been created for each case by RQ (Miles & Huberman, 1994)  From matrices and cases themes have emerged at the institutional, the programmatic, and the personal level  From themes preliminary claims have been developed  Working on substantiating claims with individual cases and converging data

9 RQ#1 - What has been CPED’s impact on doctoral preparation? Claim 1: CPED has impacted institutional policies and practices related to doctoral study and these support the EdD as a professional degree Institutions turned to CPED because they were facing internal and external challenges:  Dwindling applicants – colleges/departments losing revenue  ABDs - low completion rates  Frustration (administration, faculty, students) - EdD and/or PhD not meeting students’ needs (EdD lacked its own identity)  Demand for school leaders Administrators and faculty turned to CPED for answers and CPED provided:  Principles and design features based on students’ needs  A common language/definition of the EdD as a professional degree  Networking opportunities - access to and an opportunity to engage in a national conversation  Opportunities to see if ideas aligned with others  Prestige – cachet Survey data converges: Faculty feel CPED offers a safe place to explore. As a group, and because they were redefining the EdD, CPED has been accepted by some institutions but has met with resistance from others.

10 Claim #2 - CPED has had an impact on programs in terms of:  Design  Cohorts  Dissertations  Committees  Patterns of engagement  Student/faculty roles  Research Survey data converges: Faculty try to utilize a field-based approach, try to have students apply what they learn to their practice, and seek new ways to evaluate students. Improvement is continuous and ongoing. But there are differences - CPED provided programmatic information in the form of principles and design features and depending on the program’s context and where it was in the design/implementation process, this information was used in different ways.

11 Claim #3 CPED has had an impact on faculty, students, and deans FACULTY CPED influenced their perceptions of the EdD Have a clearer understanding of the EdD CPED influenced their positions  Types of Positions filled  Policies governing their work environment, workload, and reward structures CPED gave faculty information and a network of support  Provided a national network and framework within which faculty learned and contributed  Convenings seen as a place to network, receive new ideas, and get support to enact programmatic changes Survey data converges: Faculty reflected on their programs, built communities of practice and increased communication, collaboration, and dialogue CPED helped faculty understand the purpose of the EdD, the goals and needs of students in these programs, and the importance of using students’ knowledge and opinions in making programmatic changes.

12 But there are challenges for faculty:  understanding change as a democratic process  faculty who were not on board with changes stopped working in programs  untenured faculty dedicated to working with CPED struggle to understand how this work fits into their tenure/reward process  practitioners recruited as faculty for their perspectives but not all feel a part Survey data converges: Workloads are a concern.

13 STUDENTS CPED influenced students’:  views of doctoral education in relation to their professional practices  views of the cohort experience, as communities of scholar practitioners Survey data converges: Students pursued a CPED-influenced EdD because of their professional, career related goals, personal reasons, and because of the degree itself (it met their needs in terms of flexibility and usefulness) DEANS  Gave them new ways to bargain and collaborate across their organization and others

14 How Changes Were Made  At the institutional level changes were made considerate of and within the local context either by intention and/or necessity  Support (including financial) from varied levels of administration was provided for redesign or development of programs  When it came to change circumstances varied - no one timeline describes all  Many Phase I institutions were committed to meeting the CPED intent to both distinguish the EdD from the PhD and to strengthen both degreesPhase I members joined CPED and learned from and contributed to the learning and change of Phase II members through attendance at and participation in CPED convenings

15 Interested  CPED will be making a call later this year for new members.  Visit their website  For general information go to:  For an orientation visit: orientation orientation  For manuscripts/books:  CPED has joined with SIG 168 at AERA you may connect there.  Readings can be found at:  Contact

16 Thank you Questions? The paper and powerpoint are available at:

Download ppt "Dr. Jill Alexa Perry, Duquesne University Dr. Debby Zambo, Arizona State University Dr. David Imig, University of Maryland Susan Wunder, University of."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google