1. A comparison of partnership models—maintaining quality as professional doctorate candidates are prepared for independent research Amanda M Maddocks Concordia University Chicago

2. Introduction Concordia University Doctor of Education Program Partnerships Dissertation Supervision

3. Study Preparedness for independent research Comparison of two partnership models Candidate, faculty and partner experiences

4. Partnership Model A State school administrator’s organization Role of the partner F2F and online engagement 66 students actively enrolled in coursework

5. Partnership Model B Regional teacher and school administrator professional development organization Role of the partner Fully online 169 students actively enrolled in coursework

6. Study Design Interviews and focus groups (model B) – Sampled (n=103) over two years Surveys (both models A and B) – 24 supervisors (86%) – 65 students (42%) 36 of 65 were from model B Faculty interviews (both models) – In process

7. Program Feedback Six themes (interviews/focus groups – B) – Faculty/instruction (24%+; 24%-) – Collegial Circles (23%+; 17%-) – Program format (20%+) – Course mechanics (13%+; 30%-) – Communication (7%+; 11%-) – Services (8%-)

8. Survey Results 96.9% of students feel they have the technical skills needed to complete their research Only 45.8% of supervisors believe students have the skills needed – Supervisors’ responses varied by department (χ 2 (9, N = 24) = 20.99, p =.013)

9. Candidates have the skills needed to complete a dissertation as reported by supervisor teaching area

10. Of Note…Supervisor Experience Level

11. Supervisor Support Overall level of support provided by the supervisor is acceptable.

12. University Support Overall level of support provided by CUC is acceptable.

13. Next Steps Disconnect between self-perceived ability and abilities as assessed by supervisors Writing ability Pedagogy of supervision (Pearson & Brew, 2002) Partnership models (Maxwell, 2003; Pearson & Brew, 2002)

14. Selected References Berliner, D. C. (2006). Toward a future as rich as our past. In C. M. Golde & G. E. Walker (Eds.), Envisioning the future of doctoral education (pp. 268–289). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brennan, M. (1995). Education doctorates: Reconstructing professional partnerships around research? Australian Universities’ Review, 2, 20–22. Brew, A., & Peseta, T. (2004). Changing postgraduate supervision practice: A programme to encourage learning through reflection and feedback. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(1), 5–22. Caboni, T. C., & Proper, E. (2009). Re-envisioning the professional doctorate for educational leadership and higher education leadership: Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College EdD Program. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 61–68. Lee, A., Green, B., & Brennan, M. (2000). Organisational knowledge, professional practice and the professional doctorate at work. In J. Garrick & C. Rhodes (Eds.), Research and knowledge at work. London: Routledge. Maxwell, T. (2003). From first to second generation professional doctorate. Studies in Higher Education, 28, 279–291. Pearson, M., & Brew, A. (2002). Research training and supervision development. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 135–150. Perry, J. A., & Imig, D. G. (2008, November–December). A stewardship of practice in education. Change, pp. 42–48. Scott, D., Brown, A., Lunt, I., & Thorne, L. (2009). Specialised knowledge in UK professions. In D. Boud & A. Lee (Eds.), Changing practices of doctoral education (pp. 143–156). London: Routledge. U.S. Council of Graduate Schools. (2007). Report of the CGS Task Force on the Professional Doctorate. Washington, DC: Author.