Evaluating the role of the Carnegie Project on the

Education Doctorate (CPED) in redesigning professional

practice preparation

Jill Alexa Perry, Duquesne University & CPEDDebby Zambo, Arizona State University

Rosemarye Taylor, University of Central FloridaValerie Storey, Lynn University

UCEA Annual Meeting – Pittsburgh – November 2011

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.

Symposium Agenda

3:40pm – 3:50pmIntroduction of presenters and Overview of CPED FIPSE Research Project3:50pm -4:20pmIndividual presentations4:20pm-4:50pmCross Case Analysis & Findings4:50pm-5:00pm Questions & Discussion

Overview of CPED-FIPSE Research Project

History of the Ed.D.

Background CPED

FIPSE ResearchGoals Methodology Implementation

Date Who Event Results

1893 Teachers College, J. Russell First Ph.D. in Education To develop a professional degree

1920 Harvard Graduate School of Education, Henry Holmes First Ed.D. in Education To establish independence from School of Arts and Sciences

1930 Monroe, W. Survey of 6 institutions with Ed.D. & Ph.D. programs Curriculum between the two very similar with small difference

1931 Freeman, F.N. Extended Monroe study to 13 institutions Ed.D. served to “organize existing knowledge instead of discovering new truths” (p.1)

1934 Teachers College,William Russell Develops Ed.D. Attempts to establish independence and follow national trends

1930-1940 Ed.D. proliferation Stanford, Berkeley, Michigan, etc all develop Ed.D. The Ed.D. degree spread widely among schools of education but with little distinction of

purpose either academically or institutionally.

1963 Eells, W.C. Survey of characteristics of each degree—admissions, nature of exams & dissertation, classification of each degree Determined the degrees are indistinguishable

1964 AACTE &Ludlow, H.G.

Survey of abilities, career motivation, & job satisfaction in graduates at 91 institutions

Ph.D. “intended to be an academic-research degree”; Ed.D. “intended to be a practitioner professional degree” (p. 22). No difference in intelligence or ability

1966 AACTE &Brown, L.D.

Follow up to Ludlow study to determine similarities and difference of degree holders Despite increase in degrees awarded, most graduates went back to prior job

1983 Anderson, D.G.Study of his academic department at Univ. of Washington to determine similarities and differences between degrees—program requirements and job aspirations

Strong similarity in admission preparation and graduation requirements; However, Ph.D. considered to be scholarly while Ed.D. viewed as professional degree.

1985 Dill & Morrison Study of research requirements at 81 institutions Found methods of inquiry similar

1988 Clifford, G.J. & Guthrie, J.W. Study examined Ed Schools in the US Call for elimination of Ph.D. to fully professionalize education and make Ed.D. degree of choice

1991 Brown, L.D. Response to Clifford & Guthrie utilizing historical data on both degrees Flux in both suggest each are valid degrees

1993 Osguthorpe & Wong Study of trends in doctoral education Found no trend in moving to offer on or other, Ed.D. more likely found at comprehensive institutions. Called for national discussion to distinguish

1998 Deering, T.E. Examined dissertations, research taught, and utilization of each degree at 50 institutions

Dissertation differences consistent with purpose of each degree—Ph.D. creates knowledge; Ed.D. investigates practical issues; both taught qualitative and quantitative methods

2006 Shulman, Golde, Bueschel & Garabedian

Response to work of CID; historical review of doctoral preparation Called for reclaiming of the Ed.D. as the professional practice degree in education

2007 Levine, A. Response to Shulman et al. Six disincentives that will keep schools of Ed from distinguishing.

2007 Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate Consortium to rethink the Ed.D.

25 College 0f education come together to redesign purpose and goals of Ed.D.. Outcomes include definition of Ed.D., working principles for programs, and definitions of program design concepts

2007: Responding to Shulman et al 25 COEs convene

2008: Beginning change--Design concepts signature pedagogies, labs of practice, capstones etc

2009:New Cohorts/New programs

2010: $700K FIPSE recognition

2013: Evidence, Products, Proofing sites Redefined the Ed.D.

Shulman, Golde, Bueschel, Garabedian (2006):

Reclaiming Education’s Doctorates

For more info on initiative & findings:http://cpedinitiative.org

Guiding literatureDiffusion of Innovation Model, Everett

RogersComprehensive model of change:

“process by which an innovation is communicated through a certain channels

over time among members of a social system”

(Rogers, 1995, p. 10)4 ELEMENTS

1. Innovation new idea and what attracts people to it

2. Communication channels exchange of information in a social system

3. Time innovation-decision process, types of adopters

4. Social system institutional environment/context; leaders, change agent

Organizational Change: Agenda setting, Matching, Re-defining/ Restructuring, Clarifying, Routinizing

Goals of CPED –FIPSE Research2010-2013

Research Agenda = documenting change

1. Document and evaluate change in the organizational structures of graduate schools to accommodate new professional practice degrees for school and college leaders. (Institution)

2. Document and evaluate change in the signature learning processes, learning environments, and patterns of engagement of faculty and candidates in Ed.D. programs that participate in CPED. (Program and individual)

3. Document and evaluate fidelity to the set of guiding principles developed in Phase I. (Program)

4. Disseminate lessons learned and best practices for the design and implementation of professional practice degrees to a new cohort of graduate schools of education. (Field)

 

3 PILOT STUDIES

Midwestern University

East Central University

Southern University

19 LARGER STUDY

2012 data collection Spring Analysis Summer- Fall Reports & Cross Case

Analysis spring 2013 Dissemination 2013

Data Collection

• Interviews– faculty, Dean, PI

• Documents= internal, CPED

• Field observations– meetings

Data Analysis 1. Initial Coding: Theoretical

Proposition from Rogers

2. Categorical Analysis: describe phenomenon, properties and dimensions; themes & patterns

3. Memoing: relations between themes and patterns

4. Case Reports: shape direction of themes and patterns

5. Cross-case Analysis: overarching commonalities

Implementation of Study

The Midwestern University

• a combination land-grant and state university • the Carnegie Foundation lists it within Research Universities (very high research activity) • accredited by the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools.

• the Education College was created in 2003 from a partnership between two departments• the College is home to 2,500 undergraduate students, 1,000 masters and doctoral students, 200+ faculty and staff

Dean

enrollment was low and decliningstudents saw it as less

prestigiousmore PhD students faculty were confusedno difference in course work or

capstonesno identity/quality control

CPED

Teacher Education

Department

Educational Administration

Department

Lee Shulman

Lee Shulman

growing demandsgood track record - wanted to get better

meet the needs of their students

operate more effectively strengthen their doctoral

programsdemands for research and grant productivity strapped with large numbers of students 2006 review recommended the department

articulate their focus differentiate between the Ph.D. and

Ed.D. pay attention to on-line content

Dean/Admin

mandate +

discomfort

Teacher Education Department

core courses updatedblend practice and scholarshipmulti-disciplinary

authentic learning opportunities (researchers talking about their work) fewer methods courses

learn research that applies to practice

research methodology “not watered down”applied dissertation “CPED helped our department really reconsider

what we were doing with our curriculum and doing with our students.” lowering faculty/student ratios from 30:1 to 18:1 coursework onlinenew facultytrying to make courses more collaborativeWere working on a cohort structure

AdministrationDepartment “I think that we have a clearer vision but…

this doesn’t mean we have envisioned exactly how it plays out.”

Changes

How/Why Change Occurred

The Dean communicated the need for change and provided money for selected faculty to travel to convenings time for faculty to meet and work on restructuring programs

Change agents: who they worked with + what they did = what they were able to accomplish

DIFFERENCES IN DEPARTMENTS

started small but developed quickly developed a common vision and language(newness) CPED and critical friends helped it not dieimplementation phase moving into the continuation phase

Teacher Education Department “Redesigning our program allowed us, as a department to redefine our mission and find our identity.”

AdministrationDepartment

some gains and struggleshired new facultytrying to build collaborative structures into online courseshoping to develop a cohort

MISSINGchange agent with a vision the ability to communicate the vision the ability to rouse others into action

“…there are people holding back with a death grip…they don’t want to change, they want to stay the same.”

Suggestionremove the physical and psychological barriers between departments

East Central University

Major land-grant institution, 1865

CF = high research activity

COE 1923 top 100 US News

DUTY: Service to the state

4 EdD degrees

About….

Ed.D. Cohort Progra

m

Continued Request

from Community

College System

Faculty history of distinction

Shulman & CPED

Two Deans, two COEs,

Collaboration = Solve P-

20 issues

Recipe fo

r

Change…

Cohort Structure

Alternative Course Delivery methods

Collaborative, practice –based

dissertations

Lear

ning

En

viro

nmen

ts

Teaching =Collaborators not

mentors

Relationships= Social interactions; on-line &

face-to-face

Support= More handholding?

Rol

e of

Fac

ulty

CHANGE

COE Ed.D. & Change

CCS Program

Push from CCS

Strong Change Agent

Specified agenda

Student input

Unclear Leadership

support

Limited Agenda/Dept

Faculty barriers

The balance of change

The Southern University

The Southern UniversityDates back to 1836, but was officially formed when

two colleges combined in 1968.

First university in its state to reach 30,000 students. Currently houses almost 5,000 of its students.

Carnegie Foundation lists the Southern University as “Research Intensive (very high research activity).”

Accrediting body- Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools- to award baccalaureate, master’s, doctoral and first-professional degrees.

Largest employer in its city, employing over 18,000 people.

Implementation Journey of an innovative EdD.

Program

The Southern University and the Diffusion of Innovations Theory

Diffusion of Innovations Theory Agenda setting

Matching

Re-defining/ Restructuring

Clarifying

Routinizing (Rogers, 1995, p. 421)

The Southern University Proposal of Ed. D. program by

University President and School of Education Dean.

Program created based on the counseling background of its participants.

Faculty worked collaboratively to develop the program according to CPED Principles.

Student and faculty input into how the program can benefit from specific design changes.

Participation in CPED study to improve curriculum practices at The Southern University

Ref: Rogers, E. (1995) Diffusion of Innovation. (4th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.

Southern University’s Journey in Their Own Words

Challenges“The idea of teamwork has proven to be quite difficult, much more difficult than we thought” (Faculty 2).

Faculty 2 indicated that they wanted to determine “….how to do better individual assessments on group projects.”

“At times the role in the group was uncomfortable” (Student 1).

Results “...these graduates are going to leave this program being better prepared to implement change, because they have been taught processes to go through to implement change” (Faculty 1).

“The Ed. D. aligned perfectly with my current job and some of the things that I want to do outside being a high school principal” (Student 6).

DesignResearch outcomes were integrated into

courses.

Entire cohort was recommended by one superintendent.

Application in the practice was emphasized.

Collaboration and teamwork were signature pedagogies.

Capstone research was for organization clients.

Capstone research was completed in teams.

FindingsFirst cohort graduated 2011.

Program was refined for second cohort (2011).

Diversity was limited when cohort represented one school district.

Faculty need control over methodology, not clients.

Students like individual accountability, not team accountability.

Cross Case Analysis & Findings

What did you learn are the key components for change?With your neighbor….. tell him/her where you are from, a bit about your

university/college/department, and a bit about your Ed.D. and Ph.D.

explain your perception of the Ed.D./Ph.D. distinction. Do you feel a need to change or clarify your distinction of these degrees? If so what resources would serve you best?

explain who in your college is a key leader. Who drives change and how does he/she get their message across?

consider the supports faculty in these universities received to make programmatic and curricular changes to their Ed.D. programs. Whose support and what type of support you would need if you wanted to implement similar changes at your institution?

explain the benefits and drawbacks joining a large consortium like CPED could bring to your change process.

Thank you for participating

Questions??