Best Practices for EdD Comprehensive Exams and Capstone Projects

Students’ Attitudes and Perspectives of Outcomes in an Online Program

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2023.397

Keywords:

higher education, outcomes, EdD, graduate education, online

Abstract

This research was guided by a problem of practice experienced by an EdD program, which transitioned to a fully online modality during the pandemic and rapidly grew in enrollment. The problem evaluated was ensuring the redesigned program milestones – capstone and comprehensive exam – are feasible given the size of the program. The current study utilized descriptive research design to provide a comprehensive description of educational phenomena. The study was conducted at a large, public research university in the South. A total of 316 students enrolled in the program and were invited to complete the survey, of which 131 responses were analyzed. Results revealed differences in students’ attitudes toward capstone projects and comprehensive exams, with a strong correlation between students’ experiences with capstone projects and comprehensive exams and their overall academic self-efficacy while in the program.

Author Biographies

Masha Krsmanovic, University of Southern Mississippi

Assistant Professor, Higher Education and Student Affairs

Holly A. Foster, University of Southern Mississippi

Assistant Professor Higher Education and Student Affairs

Program Coordinator Higher Education and Student Affairs

References

Auerbach, S. (2011). It’s not just going to collect dust on a shelf: Faculty perceptions of the applied dissertation in the New California State University (CSU) EdD programs leadership education from within a feminist ethos. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/194277511100600301

Belzer, A., & Ryan, S. (2014). Defining the problem of practice dissertation: Where’s the practice, what’s the problem. Planning and Changing, 44(3/4), 195–207.

Bengtson, E., Lasater, K., Murphy-Lee, M. M., & Jones, S. (2016). The role of research courses. In J. A. Perry (Ed.). The EdD and the scholarly practitioner: The CPED path (pp. 1–12). Information Age Publishing.

Bentley, K. J. (2013). Toward an evaluation framework for doctoral education in social work: A 10-year retrospective of one PhD program’s assessment experiences. Journal of Social Work Education, 49(1), 30–47. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42000137

Capello, S. A. (2022). Linking assessments to program outcomes in practitioner-oriented EdD programs: An alternative to comprehensive examinations. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 29(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/14779714221093091

Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. (n.d.). The CPED framework. https://www.cpedinitiative.org/the-framework

Deshpande, A. (2016). A qualitative examination of challenges influencing doctoral students in an online doctoral program. International Education Studies, 9(6). http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n6p139

Deshpande, A. (2017). Faculty best practices to support students in the ‘virtual doctoral land’. Higher Education for the Future, 4(1), 12–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/2347631116681211

Ehrenberg, R. G., Jakubson, G. H., Groen, J. A. So, E., & Price, J. (2007). Inside the black box of doctoral education: What program characteristics influence doctoral students’ attrition and graduation probabilities? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(2), 134–150. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373707301707

Erichsen, E. A., Bolliger, D. U., & Halupa, C. (2014). Student satisfaction with graduate supervision in doctoral programs primarily delivered in distance education settings, Studies in Higher Education, 39(2), p. 321–338.

Estrem, H. & Lucas, B. E. (2003). Embedded traditions, uneven reforms: The place of the comprehensive exam in composition and rhetoric PhD programs. Rhetoric Review, 22(4), 396–416. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20058093

Fedock, B. (2017), Online dissertation chairs’ perceptions on the role of reflective mentoring

practices and changing student cross-cultural and generational worldviews, Sage Open, p. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017705421

Furstenberg, A. L., & Nichols-Casebolt, A. (2001). Hurdle or building block: Comprehensive examinations in social work doctoral education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 21(1/2), 19–37.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg. W. R. (2006). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.). Pearson Education.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2/3), p. 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6

Grover, V. (2007). Successfully navigating the stages of doctoral study. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 2, 9. http://ijds.org/Volume2/IJDSv2p009-021Grover21.pdf

Herr, K. G., & Anderson, G. (2015), The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty (2nd ed.). Sage.

Kumar, S., Dawson, K., Black, E. W., Cavanaugh, C., & Sessums, C. D. (2011). Applying the community of inquiry framework to an online professional practice doctoral program. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(6), p. 126–142. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i6.978

Kumar, S. & Dawson, K. (2012). Theory to practice: Implementation and initial impact of an online doctoral program. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 15(1), 1–12.

Kumar, S. & Johnson, M. (2019). Online mentoring of dissertations: The role of structure and support. Studies in Higher Education, 44(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1337736

Marsh, D. D., Dembo, M. H., Gallagher, K. S., & Stowe, H. (2010). Examining the capstone experience in a cutting-edge EdD program. In G. Jean-Marie & A. H. Normore (Eds.), Educational leadership preparation: Innovation and interdisciplinary approaches to the EdD and graduate education (pp. 203–235). Palgrave MacMillan.

Murphy, J. (2007). Questioning the core of university-based programs for preparing school leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 582–585. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170708800806

Perry, J. A. (2016). The new education doctorate: Preparing the transformational leader. In J. A. Perry (Ed.). The EdD and the scholarly practitioner: The CPED path (pp. 1–12). Information Age Publishing.

Rademaker, L. L., O’Connor-Duffy, J., Wetzler, E., & Zaikina-Montgomery, H. (2016). Chair perceptions of trust between mentor and mentee in online doctoral dissertation mentoring. Online Learning, 20(1), 1–13.

Rockinson-¬Szapkiw, A. J., Spaulding, L. S., & Spaulding, M. T. (2016). Identifying significant integration and institutional factors that predict online doctoral persistence. The Internet and Higher Education, 31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.07.003

Roumell, E. A. L., & Bolliger, D. U. (2017). Experiences of faculty with doctoral student supervision in programs delivered via distance. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 65, 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2017.1320179

Ryan, S., De Lisi, R., & Heuschkel, K. (2012). Redesigning an EdD program: Reality and necessity engender new possibilities. In M. M. Latta & S. Wunder (Eds.), Placing practitioner knowledge at the center of teacher education (pp. 75–88). Information Age.

Sverdlik, A., & Hall, N. C. (2020). Not just a phase: Exploring the role of program stage on well-being and motivation in doctoral students. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 26(1), 97–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477971419842887

Templeton, N. R., Ballenger, J. N., & Thompson, J. R. (2015). Examining the elements of online learning quality in a fully online doctoral program. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 18(4).

Terrell, S. R., Lohle, M. F., & Kennedy, D. (2016). Student¬-identified requirements for persistence in a limited-¬residency information systems PhD program. Online Journal of Applied Knowledge Management, 4(1), 150¬–164.

Thompson, J. R. Ballenger, J. N., & Templeton, N. R. (2018). Examining quality elements in a high education fully online doctoral program: Doctoral students’ perceptions. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 13(1), 51–63.

Topolka-Jorissen, K., & Wang, Y. (2015). Focus and delivery of doctoral programs in educational leadership. Journal of Educational Reform, 24(3), 212–231.

Young, M. D. (2006). From the director: The MEd, EdD and PhD in educational leadership. UCEA Review, 45(2), 6–9.

Downloads

Published

2023-08-07

How to Cite

Krsmanovic, M., & Foster, H. A. (2023). Best Practices for EdD Comprehensive Exams and Capstone Projects: Students’ Attitudes and Perspectives of Outcomes in an Online Program. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 8(3), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2023.397

Issue

Vol. 8 No. 3 (2023): Regular Issue

Section

Research Manuscripts

License

Copyright (c) 2023 Masha Krsmanovic, Holly A. Foster

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link. 

Most read articles by the same author(s)