Ed.D. in Curriculum and Instruction
Program Description
The Northern Arizona University College of Education Doctoral Program in Curriculum and
Instruction (Ed. D. in C&I) is an advanced program that seeks to prepare students for formal and
informal curriculum leadership in K-12 schools, community colleges, universities, and other
educational related venues. This program encourages application from those who have a
background in teaching, teacher preparation, experience in education related content and
curriculum and development and an understanding of and an appreciation for diversity.
This 90-hour (post bachelor) program builds upon the experiences that students bring from
their master’s work. Coursework is intended to enable doctoral students to develop









Fluency in professional literature
Understanding of historical, political, economic, and theoretical perspectives regarding
curriculum and instruction
Knowledge of curriculum and instruction theories
Ability to evaluate research and curriculum
Habits of critical inquiry
Proficiency for engagement in professional conversations
Personal educational philosophy based on an understanding of diverse theoretical and
practical perspectives
Ability to plan and conduct research that contributes to the knowledge base of teaching
Academic writing skills to report research findings
Two departments, Teaching and Learning (T&L) and Educational Specialties (ESP), make up the
Ed.D. program and share administrative support of the program. The C&I doctoral program
draws courses from all four departments in the College of Education (CoE). Students receive
most of their instruction from full-time, tenure-track professors. In regard to program courses,
100% of these courses are taught by full time, tenure-track faculty with the exception of ECI
675, which is populated by master’s and doctoral students. Full time instructors and adjunct
faculty who have doctoral qualifications have taught this course. Because student programs
consist of courses from Educational Psychology and Educational Leadership, we may have 10%
of the faculty for those courses come from adjunct or full time instructors. Such courses include
our research foundations EPS 525 Introduction to Statistics, and EDR 610 Foundations of
Research.
The Ed. D. in C&I program includes four focus areas: higher education, technology in education,
research, and content concentration. The programs of study for each focal area can be found in
Ed. D. in Curriculum and Instruction
Page 1
the Appendices file. After all coursework has been completed, students take comprehensive
exams that consist of three exams: research, their focus area, curriculum, and an oral exam.
These can be taken in two formats, either sit down or take home. Once students have passed
their competency exams, they create and submit to their committee a proposal. After this
proposal, students write a prospectus, which traditionally consists of the first three chapters of
a 5-chapter dissertation. Students publically defend the prospectus with their dissertation
committee. Upon acceptance, the student reaches candidacy and then collects his or her data.
Doctoral committees consist of a chair from the program, a faculty member in one of the two
departments that make up the program, a faculty from Educational Leadership or Educational
Psychology, and a person outside of the College of Education.
Faculty Oversight
A Curriculum and Instruction Doctoral Steering Committee consisting of 8 faculty members, 3
from the Educational Specialties Department, 3 from the Department of Teaching and Learning,
and one from the Department of Educational Psychology and one from the Department of
Educational leadership, are elected by their departments to serve. These individuals meet 2-3
times per semester to discuss issues pertaining to the C & I doctoral program. They interpret
and, at times, suggest new policies or to alter existing policies, which are then approved by the
two owning departments. In addition, they examine possible changes that will strengthen the
program and address any concerns. In addition to the steering committee, 6 faculty members,
3 from each of the owning departments, make up the admissions committee. This committee
reviews all applications and meets minimally twice a year to accept and/or deny students to the
program. In addition, they have played a role in modifying the application rubrics and process
and will continue to do so as our application comes online. They will check for its usability and
its veracity.
Brief History of the Ed.D in Curriculum and Instruction Program
The Ed. D. in C&I was developed by a guiding coalition of faculty during the mid 1980s with the
intent to create educational leaders well-versed in matters of curriculum and instructional
methods. The initial program framework was aligned with a desire to nurture instructional
leaders who engage in the significant “dialectic of freedom” (Greene, 1988) and well-steeped in
the “pedagogy of hope” (Freire, 1995) and intended for those aspiring candidates who hold a
“passion for the possible” (Coffin, 1993). The program attracts individuals who have a desire to
examine issues involved in curriculum and instruction from both a macro and micro
perspective. These individuals must have some teaching background as well as a commitment
to and experience with diversity. Over the years, the program has served two general
constituents: those who are practicing teachers, administrators or curriculum specialists in
districts and those candidates who seek faculty positions in institutions of higher education.
Ed. D. in Curriculum and Instruction
Page 2
Throughout the last two decades, the relative proportion of individuals from each group has
varied. During the early years of the program, the candidate pool was largely from K-12
professionals seeking advanced degrees, leadership positions, and job advancement. Indeed,
many of the educational leaders in curriculum and instruction in northern Arizona were
graduates of this program. With the changes in K-12 education over the last decade, the
candidate demographic has changed so that the majority of current candidates in the program
intend to seek faculty positions in institutes of higher education.
The program rests on a set of basic assumptions about curriculum and instructional leadership.
These include:






Educators are participants, not just reactors, in the dynamics of change
Effective curriculum leadership encompasses all aspects of teaching and learning
Knowledge of, use of, and participation in research are vital
Knowledge of and perspectives on diversity are prerequisites for leadership in education
Critical reflection contributes to improved practice and refinement of knowledge
Contexts of education, national and international, provide fundamental insights to
inform practice
Over the past seven years, our students have examined issues from both a macro and micro
level. The vast array of topics and interests of our students provides for a rich community of
doctoral students who come together over a commitment to improve education and make the
possible happen. Our faculty members nurture a rich learning context by offering in their
courses opportunities for discourse around educational issues. In addition, we attend to the
developmental aspect of the doctoral students by scaffolding from course to course important
skills such as writing, producing a literature review, building a research question and relevant
methodology, as well as becoming an accomplished scholar. We attend to the latter by
purposefully nurturing a scholarly network of students and faculty through monthly faculty
student teas, one day conferences for doctoral students that focus on research methodologies,
publishing and presenting, becoming a faculty member, and surviving life as a doctoral student.
Faculty members also work closely with those doctoral candidates who have graduate
assistantships by mentoring them about research and teaching.
Background Information:
Admission Rates
The following data set covering the past eight years was derived from two primary sources:
records from the NAU Graduate College and the Planning and Institutional Research (PAIR)
system. Admission data that cover the initial four years of the data set were gathered from the
Graduate College. Data for the last three years are from the Office of Assessment and the NAU
Ed. D. in Curriculum and Instruction
Page 3
PAIR data set. Over the past eight years, 104 candidates have been admitted to the program, an
average of 13 students per academic year. Based on the data from the Graduate College the
program has a 55% admittance rate. Departmental records indicate that the student
acceptance of admission offers is approximately 56%. Students who are not admitted to the
program do not meet the program criteria, which could be related to previous preparation, lack
of teaching experience, or an inadequate or incomplete admission portfolio.
Ed.D. in C&I (PAIR data)
Ed.D. Admissions
TOTAL
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total
18
10
9
10
27
11
14
5
104
Students are admitted to the Ed.D. in C&I program twice a year. Applications are due August 1st
for students interested in beginning the program in the spring semester and February 15th for
those intending to begin their program during the fall semester. A faculty-led admissions
committee admits between 4 and 10 students per semester depending on the quality of
students as determined by a review of the application portfolio. Upon acceptance, students can
compete for tuition waivers, as well as graduate assistantships. The number of tuition waivers
or graduate assistantships varies from year to year depending on the funding allocation
priorities of the Graduate College and the availability of resources within the College of
Education.
Program Enrollment
The waxing and waning of the enrollment numbers is due to multiple factors. The economic
downturn is certainly a factor in the last several years and could attribute to both the rise and
decline in numbers. Online doctoral programs could also be a factor in the decline of
enrollment. One must also question the program’s delivery mode as a factor in the ability to
maintain enrollment.
Ed. D. in Curriculum and Instruction
Page 4
Enrollment Trend
Doctorate in Curriculum & Instruction
60
Axis Title
50
40
30
20
10
0
Fall
2003
Fall
2004
Fall
2005
Fall
2006
Fall
2007
Fall
2008
Fall
2009
Fall
2010
Fall
2011
50
54
54
52
47
42
54
50
49
Enrollment
Graduation Rates
The table below reflects the graduation rate over the last eight academic years. For program
purposes, all students are considered Flagstaff-based for our program, as it is a residential
program. However, at admission, some students have designated alternate campuses (one of
the 33 Extended Campus sites, online, or at the Yuma campus). Over the last eight years, a
total of 56 candidates have completed the Ed.D. in C&I program, an average of 7 students per
year, approximately half as many graduates as admissions.
Location
Community
Campuses
Flagstaff
Online
Yuma
Total
Average
Time to
Degree
Doctoral
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06
FY 07
FY 08
FY 09
FY 10
FY 11
FY 12
1
3
0
0
4
2
5
1
0
8
0
5
0
1
6
0
9
0
1
10
4
4
1
0
9
1
7
0
0
8
0
1
0
0
1
0
5
1
0
6
2
5
1
0
8
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06
FY 07
FY 08
FY 09
6.17
6.03
6.13
6.85
5.66
Ed. D. in Curriculum and Instruction
FY 10
No data
5.11 available
FY 11
8.2
Page 5
Program Diversity and Student Engagement with Diversity
Diversity is a key aspect of our program from the application through the course work. In the
application, students must address their experiences with diversity as well as their own
understanding of it. In our core courses, faculty address aspects of diversity from a critical
perspective that provides a critical lens to the field of curriculum and instruction. The conscious
effort of the program to recruit and retain students from diverse backgrounds is evident in the
tables below. While the relative gender of program candidates has remained relatively stable
across time, the diversity of the candidate pool has increased significantly across the past eight
years, particularly in relation to candidates from Hispanic/Latino(a) or Native American cultural
or ethnic backgrounds.
In regards to student diversity, the program has been fortunate to receive support from two
federal personnel preparation grants focused on producing faculty in the fields of special and
bilingual education. The first grant, received in 2003, brought 11 doctoral students from
minority backgrounds into the program. Two of these candidates completed their program, 7
are in the process, and 2 withdrew from the program. In 2008 another federal grant was
awarded to produce faculty in the field of special education, including one student who is a
registered tribal member of a Native American community. Together, these two grants
provided opportunities to expose all doctoral candidates to highly reputable guest lecturers
whose professional foci relate to issues of students who are culturally, linguistically, diverse and
exceptional (CLDE), to interact with our students. In addition, the doctoral students from these
grants bring into the classroom, and in their interactions with the faculty, issues of students
who are CLDE enhancing the discourse around diversity in our program.
Number of Enrolled Students by Gender:
Gender
Female
FY 04
36
FY 05
39
FY 06
39
FY 07
39
FY 08
37
FY 09
33
FY 10
41
FY 11
40
FY 12
39
(72%)
(72%)
(72%)
(75%)
(79%)
(79%)
(76%)
(80%)
(80%)
14
15
15
13
10
9
13
10
10
(28%)
(28%)
(28%)
(25%)
(21%)
(21%)
(24%)
(20%)
(20%)
50
54
54
52
47
42
54
50
49
Male
TOTAL
Number of Enrolled Students by Race and Ethnicity:
Race/Ethnicity
African
American
Asian American
Hispanic
FY 04
3
FY 05
3
FY 06
2
FY 07
3
FY 08
1
FY 09
1
FY 10
1
(6%)
(6%)
(4%)
(6%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
1
1
1
1
1
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
11
3
4
9
(6%)
(7%)
(17%)
Ed. D. in Curriculum and Instruction
FY 11
FY 12
9
7
11
11
9
(19%)
(17%)
(20%)
(22%)
(19%)
Page 6
Native American
White
Hawaiian/Pacific
International
1
3
5
4
4
5
5
6
7
(2%)
(6%)
(9%)
(8%)
(8%)
(12%)
(9%)
`(12%)
(14%)
35
38
32
28
27
21
26
23
24
(70%)
(70%)
(59%)
(54%)
(57%)
(50%)
(48%)
(46%)
(49%)
7
5
5
4
3
5
7
6
5
(14%)
(9%)
(9%)
(8%)
(6%)
(12%)
(13%)
(12%)
(10%)
Two or more
Other/Not
Specified
TOTAL
50
54
54
1
2
3
3
3
(2%)
(5%)
(6%)
(6%)
(6%)
1
1
1
1
1
1
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
52
47
42
54
50
49
Self-Study Summary
The self-study should address the following central questions (as relevant):
What is the relationship of the Ed.D. in C&I program to NAU’s mission and strategic goals?
The Ed.D. in C&I program supports several of the College of Education goals. Foremost, the
program supports GOAL 2: To enhance and expand scholarship/research, especially as it relates
to the core mission and goals of the college, the university, the community, and the profession
through student faculty research. Student topics for dissertations have included examining
issues of diversity which supports goals linked to being a national leading college serving Native
Americans and Latina/Latino/Hispanic. Our doctoral grant, the FIRST grant, drew in a diverse
group of doctoral students from both Hispanic and Native American communities. In addition,
our GOAL 1: Maintain prominent leadership in Arizona in education and human services is
further supported by our graduates who engage at the policy and leadership level.
At the university level, our program supports the mission of research and teaching, supporting a
vibrant community of scholars. We provide opportunities for students to conduct research, as
well as present at various national, regional, or local professional meetings. See the Appendices
file for a list of our students’ publications and presentations. Though we are a residential
program, we have designed the program to provide as much access to our students by offering
courses on online, as well as in the summer.
What is the quality of the program?
Faculty: Quality of the Faculty and Curricular Offerings
The Ed. D. in C&I does not have a permanent teaching faculty; rather, the program depends on
a core group of tenure-track faculty members from the departments of Educational Specialties
and Teaching and Learning, as well as from the departments of Educational Psychology and
Ed. D. in Curriculum and Instruction
Page 7
Educational Leadership (for the research strand). The Doctoral Steering Committee, an elected
group of faculty members from the various departments, invites any tenure track faculty to
apply to teach a course, as well as to serve as an advisor, or as a dissertation chair and/or
committee member for candidates in the program. Since faculty members decide to pursue
such involvement, the program is served by a small core of faculty members. Because our
program builds on the courses of all four departments in our college, students have a rich group
of faculty with whom to interact. In the Appendices file is a table listing the faculty who are
involved in our program. We highlight the role each faculty plays from teaching to advising.
Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness and Innovation
Teaching evaluations for core classes in the Ed. D. in C&I for the most recent academic year
(2011-2012) are depicted in the chart below (On a 5-point Likert scale: 5 is Outstanding; 4 is
Very Good). The instrument used to complete course ratings employs a Likert 5-point scale
where a rating of five is defined as Outstanding, a rating of three is Satisfactory, and a rating of
one is deemed to be Unsatisfactory. While the course evaluation instrument samples a variety
instructional design, instructional delivery, course management and instructor variables, two
items were extracted as the best indicators of course quality: The extent to which candidates
perceived that the course increased their knowledge and the degree to which the course was
considered to be worthwhile.
Examining the results of courses in the program during this review period, instructors and the
overall course content are evaluated as very good to outstanding. Students appear to be very
satisfied with the instruction in the Ed. D. in C&I program. The response rate of candidates
varies greatly from return rates near 50% to courses that were not rated by candidates. Low
student response rate is a concern since COE went to electronic methods of rating professors.
The aggregated scores for the courses offered in the past year, indicate that with one
exception, candidate see these courses as increasing their knowledge and including knowledge
and skills that they see as worthwhile. The exception to this is the ECI 685 research course.
Reviews for this course were not as favorable and are under review. Re-evaluating all our
courses with the intention of continuous improvement is an ongoing process.
Educational Foundations Core
Course Number and Title
EDF 670 Philosophy of Education
Sections
Taught
2011-12
8
Response
Rate
(range)
31%
Increased
Knowledge
Course
Worthwhile
4.24
4.09
3.96
3.91
4.43
4.32
(0-56%)
EDF 672 Comparative Education
3
43%
(13-90%)
EDF 677 Education Sociology
4
48%
(33-67%)
Ed. D. in Curriculum and Instruction
Page 8
Curriculum and Instruction Core
Course Number and Title
ECI 675: Principles of Curriculum
Construction
ECI 710 Contexts of Schooling
Sections
Taught
2011-12
7
Response
Rate
(range)
35%
Increased
Knowledge
Course
Worthwhile
3.91
3.74
(0-60%)
1
63%
4.60
4.60
ECI 730 Paradigms for Research in
Curriculum and Instruction
ECI 740 Praxis Seminar
1
0%
Not Rated
Not Rated
1
43%
4.33
4.33
ECI 761 Advanced Seminar in Curriculum
Problems
1
50%
4.50
4.50
Sections
Taught
2011-12
12
Response
Rate
(range)
48%
Increased
Knowledge
Course
Worthwhile
4.43
4.42
3.80
3.71
38%
2.00
2.00
51%
4.36
4.40
4.67
5.00
4.00
5.00
Research Core
Course Number and Title
EPS 525 Introduction to Statistics
(26-65%)
EDR 610 Introduction to Research
28
50%
(0-100%)
ECI 685 Graduate Research
1
EPS 625 Intermediate Statistics
2
(44-57%)
ECI 798 Dissertation Seminar
3
78%
(0-100%)
ECI 799 Dissertation
3
4%
(0-6%)
Faculty Contributions to Discipline or Profession through Scholarly, Creative or Professional
Activity
Faculty members serving roles in this program contribute to their discipline or profession
through their scholarship, course development and service. Scholarship has been represented
through publications and presentations on multiple levels as well as through sharing their
expertise in their service to the scholarly community and the general community. The core
faculty have produced more than 100 publications and presented at more than 120 local, state,
regional, national, or international professional conferences or meetings since 2003. Faculty
have published in key journals in their respective fields, such as Phi Delta Kappan and Journal
of Special Education as well as have served as reviewers and editors. The Appendices file
provides a list of recent publications by core faculty members. The Appendices file lists
presentations at local, state, regional, national, and international conferences and conventions.
Ed. D. in Curriculum and Instruction
Page 9
Assessment of Student Learning/Success
Assessment of our program has relied on the successful completion of the dissertation. The
Appendices file lists the dissertations completed over the last eight years. As reported earlier
we have graduated about 6 students per year. We have started to allow students to be
readmitted to the program, in consultation with the Graduate College and the admissions
committee, to continue working toward completion of their program of study.
Mentoring and Research Activity of Graduate Students
Upon entering the program, all students must meet with the C&I coordinator to design his/her
individual program of study. In addition, the coordinator individually orients students to the
program structure, policies, and ways to be successful. This approach has supported the
individual interests and life circumstances of our students. The faculty members who serve the
program make an effort to help students identify research projects they can become involved in
during their time in the program. One curriculum area, Educational Technology, has worked to
include graduate students in faculty research projects and publications, as well as participating
as a member of presentations at national and/or international professional meetings. This is an
area we would like to see increased. Candidates in the program are also provided opportunities
to teach courses and conduct research on teaching with faculty members in the College of
Education in response to an increase in the number of students interested in pursuing faculty
positions after graduation. Participating faculty members are paired with doctoral candidates in
mentoring relationships to help candidates in the development of syllabi as well as the
delivery/teaching of the courses, assessing student learning, and in pursuing projects on the
scholarship of teaching and learning. As a second means of addressing the needs of candidates
interested in careers in higher education, the majority of the graduate assistantships for
doctoral candidates in the program focus on working with our undergraduate pre-service
teachers and teacher preparation programs. Since program candidates are often fresh from the
classroom and therefore provide a recent perspective on classroom life, working with the
teacher preparation programs in the College of Education enhances the understanding of preservice students preparing for careers in the classroom.
Student/Alumni Survey
In the most recent survey of doctoral candidates conducted in 2009, a questionnaire was
developed and delivered using Survey Monkey with the assistance of the COE Faculty Research
Center (FRC) staff. Twenty-eight percent of eligible candidates responded to the survey
invitation. The candidate responses identified the following strengths of the program:

Program’s reputation
Ed. D. in Curriculum and Instruction
Page 10

Its flexibility to meet students’ needs such part and full time, as well as interests, various
delivery methods

The Foci meet students’ needs

Program costs and potential for funding through tuition waivers and graduate
assistantships

Its geographical location, as well as the community that is nurtured among the students
and faculty
Respondents also noted some of the weaknesses of the program as well as preferences.
Candidates indicated that they are interested in a shift to a Ph. D. program that would be
supportive of an increasing number of students who are interested in becoming faculty. The
survey also identified a difference in the candidate experience between our full-time graduate
candidates who attend classes and are based in Flagstaff and our part-time candidates who
take their coursework and live in an area served by one of our extended campus offices. Each
group desire different types of delivery, such as more face-to-face for the Flagstaff students and
more online or weekend for the distance. This presents a challenge to determine the balance
for the program offerings and to effective strategies to serve the different needs of the two
different candidate populations. In addition, candidates indicated that they would like better
and more predictable access to courses to be able to complete their program of study in an
effective and efficient manner. Due to new enrollment requirements, low enrolled courses have
been cancelled, affecting candidates’ degree progress. Candidates also indicated that they
appreciate the greater level of financial support, which increased to 100% tuition for graduate
assistantships. However, only a few of the candidates in the program receive such support.
Lastly, another theme that emerged from the survey relates to graduate assistantships.
Candidates requested a more transparent process in regards to application and selection
process.
Coordinator and Advisor Survey
The Curriculum and Instruction Doctoral Steering Committee conducted a Self Study to examine
how our program compared to peer institutions that have Ed.D.s in C&I or a similar type of
emphasis. Though this self-study focused on the questions below, it provided valuable
perspectives on our program’s strengths and weaknesses.
 What is the most common degree offered by C&I doctoral programs around the
nation in terms of Ph.D. and Ed.D.?
 Given the number of research courses and rigorousness of our program, do we
resemble a Ph.D. program or an Ed.D. program?
Ed. D. in Curriculum and Instruction
Page 11
Below are both the strengths and challenges of our program from this self-study.
Strengths:
The Ed. D. in C&I program prepares experts in the field of curriculum and instruction who play
multiple roles based in both K-12 and university settings. This supports the CoE goals to prepare
professional educators to promote learner success in Arizona’s schools (CoE Goal 1), as well as
increasing scholarly activity in the fields of curriculum and instruction (CoE Goal 2). In particular,
the two federal grants have met a state and national need for faculty in the field of bilingual
special education which supports the goal of providing leadership in the field of education (Goal
1) as well as serving a leader in the field of Native American and Latino education (Goals 4 and
5). Graduates have gone into higher education focusing on the intersection of diversity and
curriculum and instruction, with others based in leadership positions around the state.
Curriculum offerings
The self-study report found that the Ed. D. in C&I program is a hybrid between a Ph.D. and an
Ed.D. program. Residency requirements in our program resemble more those found in other
Ed.D. programs. Although our program offers an Ed. D. degree, the program of studies does
not seem to support a practitioner-oriented degree. For instance, candidates do not take
courses with titles such as “Teacher Supervision,” or “Improving Instruction” that may be
characteristic of a more practitioner oriented program. Rather, the courses in the C&I program
seem to be geared more toward an academic goal and, by consequence, more in support of a
Ph.D. degree. Regardless of the route our program takes in terms of defining the type of degree
offered, it is implied that changes in the program need to happen.
What does the program contribute to the region, state or local community?
We draw many of our students from Arizona and the region and they subsequently after
graduation stay in the area. Upon completion, graduates of the program engage in the
profession at the policy, teaching and university levels. For example, we have students who
work at the state level of education, and at the county levels. By providing leadership in these
broad and diverse levels, graduates of the program are contributing to improving teaching at
both the practitioner (K-12) and higher education level. Beyond the roles that the program
graduates assume once they leave NAU, candidates contribute to the profession through the
scholarship they produce. Candidates engage in substantive research projects about curriculum
and teaching, both while in the program and in their capstone dissertation project. This
training promotes subsequent research and scholarship once the candidates have completed
their degree and assume a position of leadership in K-12 or higher education settings. The
research and scholarship produced by candidates of the program contributes to an expanding
database of knowledge of effective educational practices.
Ed. D. in Curriculum and Instruction
Page 12
What are the program’s strategic plans for the future?
Future improvements for the Ed.D. in C&I Program fall into four broad categories: students,
faculty/staff, program enhancements, and program delivery system.
Students:
1. Provide additional support for candidates.
a. At time of student admission, match existing faculty expertise with student interest.
b. Students would like to see more organized social support, as well as funding, and
career support. Though we have developed some social networks for the Flagstaffbased students, this has been a challenge for candidates taking courses in distance
locations. In the last year the, Graduate College has increased their support for
candidates through graduate student workshops that address career skills, teaching
at the university level, and other skills and information needed to be successful as a
member of a higher education institution. Program faculty have appreciated the
centralization of these resources and advertised them. In addition, the tuition
remission for graduate assistants by the Graduate College was increased to 100%
last year, which had been a concern. The additional financial support allows more
students to pursue the degree program.
2. Increase the levels of financial support to make the program more attractive to a diverse
pool of potential candidates.
a. The program and college intend to identify sources of external funding and submit
proposals for grants to support program candidates through tuition support,
graduate assistantships and support for travel to professional conferences or
meetings.
3. Increase opportunities for doctoral candidates to participate in research projects and
present at professional conferences and meetings.
a. Currently, candidates are involved in some research activities with faculty members
who are participating in the program. One curriculum area, education technology,
has made a concerted effort to included doctoral candidates in scholarly activities
and presentations at professional meetings. It would benefit the program to have
additional opportunities for candidates in this program participate in together
faculty- and/or student-directed research projects in the College. This could be
accomplished by creating a brokerage of current or proposed research projects,
providing students with a listing of faculty research interests, identifying and
Ed. D. in Curriculum and Instruction
Page 13
securing funding to support student faculty research endeavors (NSF, Department of
Education, or local college funds).
Faculty/Staff
1. The C&I doctoral coordinator plays an important role in recruiting candidates, managing
the curriculum (course scheduling, identifying course instructors), and advising
candidates in the program. It is particularly important that students have access to the
coordinator during the summer residency portion of the program. At present, there is
no mechanism for providing funding for this effort outside of summer teaching
assignments. Many doctoral programs are grant supported in order to provide this level
of support, both during the academic year and during off contract times such as summer
sessions.
2. Over the last five years, the faculty and Doctoral Steering Committee have noted the
widening interests of our students and their desire to work with faculty in other
departments in addition to those in Curriculum and Instruction, such as Educational
Foundation and Student Affairs students. At present, the program is staffed primarily
through volunteer faculty members who teach courses or advise students as part of
their standard assignments through their department(s). This does not always lend
itself to meeting the diverse interests of program candidates. The program coordinator
and department chairs will need to devise a plan to increase the availability of faculty
members across the college or investigate a means to dedicate certain faculty members
to the program as full-time appointments.
3. The program coordinator will work with department chairs to decrease the
advising/dissertation chair load of faculty members participating in the Ed.D. in C&I
program so the student-to-faculty ratio is reduced.
4. Develop an incentive to encourage faculty to co- publish and co-present with students.
This could be through summer and independent studies as ways to provide research
opportunities for our students. Additional support through grant funding or targeted
use of scholarship funds of the department(s) or college could also provide a financial
incentive for faculty members to engage with program candidates in substantive
research projects.
Ed. D. in Curriculum and Instruction
Page 14
Program
1. Conduct a curriculum audit. While continuous improvements have been made to the
program during this review period, there has not been a comprehensive analysis of the
curriculum in several years. The program audit should include the following:
a. As indicated earlier, the program serves two primary constituencies, K-12
practitioners and those intending to work in higher education settings. This dual
focus to the program presents challenges in recruiting candidates, scheduling
appropriate classes, and in matching faculty members to students. There is a need
to reassess the program intent to determine the specific practices that serve as the
core of the program. Is the program designed to primarily support Pk-12 practice? Is
it intended to support higher education practice? Or should it continue to attempt
to address both? The decision that is ultimately made will shape how the program
faculty advertise, recruit, and manage the program of study.
b. Conduct a curriculum audit to determine whether course foci have shifted over time
and if the current portfolio of courses continues to serve our candidates well.
Student surveys and the deliberations of the Doctoral Steering Committee have
identified concerns that include a potential need to streamline the required courses
to provide for more focused attention to candidate interest areas.
c. Increase the coordination of the Ed. D. in C&I and other doctoral program within the
College of Education. At present, the three doctoral programs in the College of
Education (Ph.D. programs in Educational Psychology and Ed. D. programs in
Educational Leadership) function as separate programs, independently recruiting
their candidates, developing and offering courses, advising candidates, and
allocating program resources (financial support, graduate assistants, participation of
faculty members). The separate nature of the programs creates inefficiencies in
delivering doctoral programs. For example, since the program uses course offerings
from several departments, when another curriculum area restructures their courses
or course offerings, the C&I program is impacted, sometimes negatively by reducing
the availability of key courses these candidates need for the program of studies. The
program will initiate discussions to identify methods to work more closely with the
other doctoral programs to better coordinate and integrate efforts across the
college.
Ed. D. in Curriculum and Instruction
Page 15
d. Consider structuring focal areas to address critical issues and needs. This may
include creation of classes that respond to the emerging needs of the state and the
nation.
e. Presently, there are many courses that are 600-level, designed mostly for students
pursuing master’s degrees. However, candidates in this doctoral program also take
these courses and count them towards their program of studies. As part of the
curriculum audit, the program will examine the relative ratio of courses at the
master’s and doctoral level and the density of master’s students in courses taken by
program candidates in the Ed. D. in C&I. If warranted, the program may need to
create more courses at the doctoral level to provide a more rigorous and relevant
experience for program candidates.
f. Determine whether the College should pursue a Ph.D. program, continue with only
an Ed.D. option or offer both pathways for program candidates.
g. Determine the optimum number of credit hours required for completion of the
program of study. The program currently requires that candidates complete 90
hours of coursework in their program of study. Eighteen hours may be transferred
into the program of study from previous master’s degree programs. The program
faculty members and coordinator will need to determine whether candidates
continue to need a 90 program or whether the College should offer a doctoral
degree that takes into account only credits earned during matriculation in the
program of study. That is, the faculty members and coordinator must determine
whether to discontinue the practice of allowing candidates to count previous
master’s level courses as part of the doctoral program of studies.
2. Create program learning outcomes and associated assessment plans for this degree
program.
a. The current assessment plan for this program of study consists of assessing the
degree to which candidates are successful in completing their dissertation project.
In light of current assessment and best practices in curriculum development, a more
extensive and encompassing assessment plan is needed. In collaboration with the
NAU Assessment office the program coordinator will identify the key program goals,
important candidates learning outcomes, and develop a comprehensive assessment
system to sample candidates learning and proficiencies, evaluate course offerings
and scholarship production of candidates, and sample post-graduation placement,
Ed. D. in Curriculum and Instruction
Page 16
so as to evaluate the effectiveness of the Ed. D. in C&I program, especially in light of
the Ph.D./Ed.D. discussion noted above.
3. Determine the optimal level of resources for the program.
a. The program coordinator, in collaboration with chairs of the participating
departments will need to identify the appropriate level of resources (financial,
personnel, and time/effort) required for the program. As indicated earlier, the
program is supported by one program coordinator and volunteer faculty members
from several departments. The departments/college will need to identify the
optimum level of support needed to sustain and grow the program over the next
seven years.
b. If the conclusion is reached that we should continue to offer pathways for K-12 and
higher education in this degree program, a thorough analysis must be completed to
identify the resources available to address each pathway and how these resources
can be most effectively used. The results of such a resource audit/review will further
inform the decision relating to whether the program should continue to offer both
pathways, or focus its efforts on offering only one emphasis area.
Delivery System:
1. Examine delivery method. The program currently offers coursework in both an inperson and online format. In person courses are offered only on the Flagstaff campus.
Online courses offer candidates the flexibility to complete the course in any location.
While this arrangement serves the campus-based candidates well, it poses challenges
for student not residing in the Flagstaff area who must relocate during the summer to
complete some of their courses. Given the bifurcated candidate population (K-12 and
higher education), on campus full time and distant students who are on campus in
summers, it is important that the program find ways to support both populations of
students, both those in Flagstaff and those living in a distance location. The program
needs to complete an analysis of course delivery options, including hybrid/blended
courses in the sequence of course offerings.
2. Over the years, the program schedule has changed both to meet the needs of the
changing demographics of candidates and in response to curriculum initiatives in
departments offering courses in the program of study. The program adjustments, while
helpful for some candidates, have caused difficulty for others. To remedy this situation,
the program will work with the supporting departments to establish a five-year,
predictable schedule of classes. Such a schedule will provide candidates with firm
Ed. D. in Curriculum and Instruction
Page 17
guidance that allows them to plan their program of studies in the most effective and
efficient manner possible.
3. Find ways across the departments to make sure we meet minimum enrollment
requirements. One particular problem faced by this doctoral program is maintaining a
set of courses students can enroll in during each academic term. With the recent
initiatives to improve program efficiency and optimize course scheduling to effectively
employ diminishing resources (financial, personnel, and time/effort), minimum course
“make” numbers have been established. For graduate courses, courses must have 8
students during a standard academic term (fall, spring) and 10 for summer sessions.
These thresholds present problems for maintaining a consistent set of course offerings.
Often, doctoral courses do not meet the threshold numbers listed above and are
cancelled, affecting degree progression for candidates in the program. The program
coordinator with the assistance of department chairs will need to identify ways to
support the lower enrolled courses to insure that program candidates can complete
their degrees in a timely manner. Possible solutions involve, adjusting the minimum
thresholds for doctoral programs (a university level discussion), securing grant support
to insure that the salary of faculty teaching courses with low enrollment does not affect
department/college revenues, securing funding to increase the number of students in
the program and increase course enrollment, developing a sequence of course offerings
that aggregates enrollment in courses to meet the established minimum enrollment
thresholds.
Ed. D. in Curriculum and Instruction
Page 18