Envisioning a New Professional Practice
Doctorate in Education
David Imig and Jill Perry
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE)
60 th Annual Meeting
New Orleans, LA
February 7, 2008

CARNEGIE PROJECT
ON THE EDUCATION DOCTORATES
2007-2010
New conceptions/models for professional doctorates
Demonstration proofs
Candidate criteria
Capstone experiences
Core curricula
Signature pedagogies
Laboratories of practice
Institutional change strategies

 California State University
System
 Connecticut
 Duquesne (PA)
 Florida
 Houston (TX)
 Kansas
 Kentucky
 Louisville
 Lynn (FL)
 Maryland
 Missouri
 Nebraska
 Northern Illinois
 Oklahoma
 Pennsylvania State
 Rutgers (NJ)
 South Florida
 Southern California
 Vanderbilt (TN)
 Vermont
 Virginia
 Virginia Commonwealth
 Virginia Tech
 Washington State

Qualitative Concerns &
Doctoral Education
 Quality Considerations (Students)
 FT Study/FT Support
 GRE Scores
 TCD Expectations (3-5 Years)
 Research Opportunities/Presentations
 Publications
 Placement at Research Extensive Institutions
 Quality Considerations (Program)
 Student Mentoring/Faculty Advisement
 Employer Satisfaction
 Faculty Publications and Citations
 Candidate Satisfaction

PK-12 School
Leadership/
Teaching Research
Extensive
Community
College/
Liberal Arts/
Comprehensive
College
Faculty &
Leaders
Agency/Organization
Other/
International
For Profit Providers/
Businesses
Graduate
School of
Education

 The PhD and PPD should be different – maybe!
 “Coursework-only” doctorates are unacceptable – professional practice experiences are essential.
 The PPD is dependent upon “engaged research” – with questions derived from external entities.
 There is need for explicit criteria for professional accreditation, including national standards.
 There is the need for the PPD to be as rigorous as the
PhD in Education
 Standards of excellence must be more than credit hours earned.

Seek
Two, Clear,
Distinct,
Different
Approaches to Doctoral
Education
(PhD and
EdD)
Work Across
CADREI
Institutions;
Collaboratively
Develop New
Professional
Practice
Doctorates
(Engage CSU
Institutions)
Use
NBPTS
Assessment
Model:
Outcomes/
Expectations
Focused
(Where
Applicable)
Appreciate
Efforts of
Others:
University of
Southern
California &
Peabody
College,
Vanderbilt
University

School
Leadership
 school principals
 teacher leaders
 Curriculum specialists
 superintendents
Teacher
Education
 college & university situated faculty
 clinical and school-based teacher educators
 community college teaching faculty
Organizational
Leadership
 professional & managerial staff of agencies & organizations
 Community college leadership

 Shulman, L.S., et.al. (2006) Reclaiming Education’s
Doctorates.
(ER)
 Walker, G.E., et.al. (2008) The Formation of Scholars:
Rethinking Doctoral Education for the 21 st Century . (CF)
 Golde, C.M., et.al. (2005) Envisioning the Future of
Doctoral Education: Preparing Stewards of the
Discipline . (CF)
 Lynch, C. & Hulse, C. (2007) Task Force Report on the
Professional Doctorate . (CGS)
 Shulman, L.S. (2000) Rethinking the Doctorate . (CF)
 Sullivan, W. (2005) Work and Integrity: The Crisis &
Promise of Professionalism in America.
(CF)

A. Design Principles
Seeking
Professional
Formation
Emphasizing the
Scholarship of
Practice
Creating New
Capstone
Experiences
Creating Engaging
Intellectual
Communities
Creating Signature
Pedagogies
Using Common
Performance
Assessments
Establishing a
Curricular Core
Documenting the
Process
Requiring
Candidates to be in a Current Practice

 AACTE
 AERA
 CF
 CADREI
 CGS
 UCEA
 University of Maryland – College Park








 When? CPED Calendar
 How? Design Principles, Components,
Strategies & Outcomes
 How? Bi-annual Convenings
 In-between: Communication &
Progress Reports
 Creating Demonstration Proofs

When?
The CPED Calendar
2007: Conceptual & Design Phase: Introduction to concepts and ideas
February
June
October
Initial Introduction
Scholarship of Teaching &
Laboratories of Practice
Assessment/Capstones &
Signature Pedagogies
At AACTE
At Carnegie
At Peabody
2008: Experimental Phase: Incorporation, Implementation,
Documentation
February Documentation & Updates At AACTE
June Modeling Successful Practices At Carnegie
September Impacting Other Programs At USC
2009-10: Deliberation & Dissemination

B. Redesign Components
 Expectations
 Admissions
 Themes
 “Signature Pedagogy”
 Habits of the Mind

Habits of the Heart
 Habits of the Hand
 Core Curriculum
 Specialty Curriculum
 Faculty Qualifications
 Mentoring Designs
 Role of Assessments
 Laboratories of Practice
 Methodological
Components
(Qualitative &
Quantitative)
 Theoretical Components
(Epistemological & Ethical)
 Assessments
(NBPTS)
 Capstone Experiences

C. Strategies and Expected Outcomes
 Build on CID Experiences
 Focus on the PPD Components
 Redesign the PhD as Companion Work
 Position Assessments as Prime Driver of PPD Designs
 Focus on “Value-Added” vs. Replacement
 Focus on Practice Sites vs. Program Emphases
 Appreciate Standards and Accreditation Implications

Signature activity of Carnegie Foundation programs
Central feature=coming together
Idea Centered
Mix of Pedagogies
CPED
Convening
Unstructured
Conversations
Multiple Voices
High Expectations

June 2007 Example of
Pre-work Group work during Convening
•
3.
Investigate clinically-based professional practice degrees & Identify key elements of their of laboratories of practice.
•
Structure?
• Expectations of preparation?
• Laboratory of practice  course/dissertation
How do faculty interact to define or discuss relationship?
• Assessment?
• Staging process in the laboratory of practice/fieldwork/internship?
•
Advantages/disadvantages of the laboratory of practice?
Utilizing Assignment 3, please discuss the following questions:
1.What are some good examples of fields that utilize laboratories of practice to promote scholarship of practice as well as prepare future professionals?
2.Why is the laboratory a key part of the training received?
3.Describe some key components that comprise these laboratories of practice?
4.What are the benefits of these laboratories for Faculty or Students (depending on your group)?
5.How is this laboratory integrated into the program to enhance both faculty and student work?
6.Create a list of the 5 most important outcomes of your group discussion that will inform and help direct the incorporation of laboratories of practice into EdD or PPD programs in Education.

October 2007 Example of
Pre-work
2: Investigating Learning Outcomes with Assessment Data
What are the outcomes of your pilot/model program? Bring examples of the data you gather and use regarding student performance and be prepared to answer the following questions:
1.How do you know whether the program outcomes are met? Who analyzes them and how they used? What measures of student performance are most valued in program assessment and review?
How are the performance data used to strengthen and redesign courses and experiences?
Group work during Convening
Assessing Outcomes
Utilizing your pre-work, create a rubric to judge the quality of your program using student performance data
-What are some program assessment ideas that will serve your research design?
- How will your program collect data about a cohort or group of students?
- What will that collection look like?
2.How does this information inform your consideration of capstone courses and experiences? How do your students address substantive problems collectively and individually? What is the artifact that they produce that demonstrates mastery of concepts that span several topic areas in education policy and practice and require interaction with other disciplines and fields of study? What oral and written reports are expected?
3.What research questions do the data generate that will further your institution’s work and inform consideration of the capstone properties?

Using logic model elements as reporting categories
Submit Progress Reports a month before convenings

•Campus deliberations/discussion– engaging intellectual communities of stakeholders to define themes, directions and processes
•Information gathering—surveys of stakeholders, institutional data
•Teams engaging in project design around a central themes, notions, ideas, identity that give context to change and set project apart from other reforms





Trends
Incorporating Design Concepts
Signature pedagogies
Habits of the mind : consumers of research, cognitive apprentices, talking papers
Habits of the hand : mentoring, apprenticeship, arts of the practice
Habits of the heart : social justice, diversity, cultural leadership
Scholarship of teaching
• Faculty self-reflection
• Map curriculum to learning outcomes
• Team teaching
Laboratories of practice
• Target districts
• Face-to-face meetings with professionals
• Contextual rotations
• Internships
• Current work place
Capstones
• Backward mapping
• Use of state standards
• Program design & leadership analysis

University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Teaching, Learning, & Teacher Education
•field-testing a selection of “arts of the practical” course offerings
•a core doctoral seminar experience
University of Connecticut cohort of 10 students, newly designed, six-credit course sequence focused:
•how to read quantitative research articles,
•how to interpret and understand the findings,
•how to apply the findings to address problems of practice
Washington State University
•designation of core research courses & experiences
•Incorporated into plan of study-- Ed.D.s in Educational Leadership,
Teaching and Learning, and Community College Leadership
Duquesne University
•framed around identity= “Scholarship for Schools”
•design proposals, test prototypes and study process and products

CPED Initiative &
Institutional
Challenges
On-going understanding of design concepts:
What are they?
How to create institutional buy-in and change?
AVOID
“PhD-lite” tag
AVOID perception of
“mission creep” or “degree inflation”
GAIN credibility for the EdD as the degree of choice for professional practitioners
ARRIVE at a set of standards for doctoral programs

 Responding to Demonstrated Need
 Contributing to Communities
 Advancing Professional Practice
 Transforming P-12 Schools & Colleges
 Meeting Accreditation Standards
 Ensuring Consistency with GSE
Mission & Goals
 Using Markers of Program Success
 Holding to Equivalency Expectations with
PhD in Education
 Ensuring Intellectual & Material Resources

“….despite…repeated calls for reform, resistance to change has been strong.
Major problems persist and some are worsening.”
“…given the inertia of academic departments and the spotty results of past reform efforts, widespread success may be elusive.”
The Real Science
Crisis, CHE, Septem-
Ber 21, 2007

 Reliance on Scientifically Based Evidence/Education as Science (IES-NICHD-NRC)
 Focus on PK-12 Student Learning as Core for
Teacher Education (APA, CADREI)
 Congressional Accountability Expectations (Ed Trust,
AACTE, APA) in the 110 th Congress
 ED Advocacy for Assessment & Accountability (Miller
& Spellings’ Report/Barnes & Thompson Report) (Hickok, NYT,
10/11 Op.Ed.)
 Impact of the Levine Reports (ESP) and the RAND
Study of TNE (Carnegie)
 Competition from Alternative Providers (Fordham &
NCTQ, PPI & AEI)

 PhD in Education – 1893 – TCCU (William
Russell)
 EdD – 1920 – Harvard (Henry Holmes)
 Professionalization of Preparation & Practice
(William Bagley & CF)
 AACTE Studies of the Doctorate (1960s)
 Doctoral Granting Sites: 300+ (?)
 Only 25-30% of Degree Recipients Teach or Do
Research in Higher Education