Approaching EdD Program Redesign as a Problem of Practice

Authors

  • Lesley F Leach Tarleton State University
  • Juanita M Reyes Tarleton State University
  • Credence Baker Tarleton State University
  • Ryan Glaman Tarleton State University
  • Jordan M Barkley Tarleton State University
  • Don M Beach Tarleton State University
  • J Russell Higham Tarleton State University
  • Kimberly Rynearson Tarleton State University
  • Mark Weber Tarleton State University
  • Tod Allen Farmer Tarleton State University
  • Randall Bowden Tarleton State University
  • Jesse Brock Tarleton State University
  • Phillis Bunch Tarleton State University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2020.100

Keywords:

problem of practice, EdD program redesign, faculty

Abstract

As members of the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED), universities across the United States are restructuring EdD programs to better prepare professional practitioners with the practical skills and theoretical knowledge needed to improve the educational environments that they serve. The hallmark of these programs is often the dissertation in practice, a scholarly investigation within which students define a problem of practice and then systematically test solutions to that problem. In this study, we investigate the experiences of university faculty participating in the redesign of an Educational Leadership EdD program who approach the redesign as a problem of practice. Root causes of identified program issues are presented in addition to the changes implemented in the redesigned program to improve upon the problem of practice.

 

References

Archbald, D. (2008). Research versus problem solving for the education leadership doctoral thesis: Implications for form and function. Educational Administration Quarterly, 5(44), 704-739.

Archbald, D. (2014). The GAPPSI Method: Problem-solving, planning, and communicating – concepts and strategies for leadership in education. Ypsilanti, MI: NCPEA Publications.

Barnett, B. G., & Muse, I. D. (1993). Cohort groups in education administration: Promises and challenges. Journal of School Leadership, 3, 400-415.

Browne-Ferrigno, T., & Muth, R. (2003). Effects of cohorts on learners. Journal of School Leadership, 13(6), 621-643.

Burnett, P. C. (1999). The supervision of doctoral dissertations using a collaborative cohort model. Counselor Education and Supervision, 39, 46-52.

Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved from http://www.cpedinitiative.org/page/AboutUs

Dorn, S. M., Papalewis, R., & Brown, R. (1995). Educators earning their doctorates: Doctoral student perceptions regarding cohesiveness and persistence. Education, 116, 305-314.

Everson, S. T. (2006). The role of partnerships in the professional doctorate in education: A program application in educational leadership. Educational Considerations, 33(2), 1-15.

Golde, C. M. (2006). Preparing stewards of the discipline. In C. M. Golde, & G. E. Walker (Eds.), Envisioning the future of doctoral education (pp. 3-23). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Harry, M., & Schroeder, R. (2000). Six Sigma: The breakthrough management strategy revolution the world’s top corporations. New York, NY: Currency.

Hoffman, R. L., & Perry, J. A. (2016). In J. A. Perry (Ed.), The EdD and the scholarly practitioner: The CPED path (pp. 13 - 25). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (6th ed.). (2017). Root cause analysis in health care: Tools and techniques. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: Author.

LeMahieu, P. G., Nordstrum, L. E., Cudney, E. A. (2017). Six Sigma in education. Quality Assurance in Education, 25(1), 91-108.

Perry, J. A. (2016a). The scholarly practitioner as steward of the practice. In Storey, V. A., and Hesbol, K. A. (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to dissertation development and research methods (1st ed., pp. 300-313). New York, NY: Information Science Reference.

Perry, J. A. (2016b). The new education doctorate: Preparing the transformational leader. In J. A. Perry (Ed.), The EdD and the scholarly practitioner: The CPED path (pp. 1 - 10). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Preuss, P. G. (2003). School leaders’ guide to root cause analysis: Using data to dissolve problems. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Recker, J., Rosemann, M., Indulska, M., & Green, P. (2009). Business process modeling – A comparative analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(4), 333-363.

Rohanna, K. (2017). Breaking the “adopt, attack, abandon” cycle: A case for improvement science in K-12 education. In C. A. Christie, M. Inkelas & S. Lemire (Eds.), Improvement Science in Evaluation: Methods and Uses. New Directions for Evaluation, (153), 65-77.

Shulman, L. S., Golde, C. M., Bueschel, A. C., & Garabedian, K. J. (2006). Reclaiming education’s doctorates: A critique and a proposal. Educational Researcher, 35, 25–32.

Storey, V. A., Caskey, M. M., Hesbol, K. A., Marshall, J. E., Maughan, B., & Dolan, A. W. (2015). Examining EdD dissertations in practice: The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. International HETL Review, 5(2). Retrieved from https://www.hetl.org/examining-edd-dissertations-in-practice-the-carnegie-project-on-the-education-doctorate/

(University Name) (n.d.). Mission/Vision/Core Values. Retrieved from https://www.(University Name).edu/strategicplan/2016-2020/mission-vision.html

Williams, P.M. (2001). Techniques for root cause analysis. Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, 14(2), 154-157.

Willis, J., Inman, D., & Valenti, R. (2010). Completing a professional practice dissertation: A guide for doctoral students and faculty. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2020-04-06

How to Cite

Leach, L. F., Reyes, J. M., Baker, C., Glaman, R., Barkley, J. M., Beach, D. M., Higham, J. R., Rynearson, K., Weber, M., Farmer, T. A., Bowden, R., Brock, J., & Bunch, P. (2020). Approaching EdD Program Redesign as a Problem of Practice. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2020.100

Issue

Vol. 5 No. 1 (2020)

Section

Research Manuscripts

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)