CPED Framework Implementation and Impact Rubrics Self-Study

An Overview

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2026.622

Keywords:

education doctorate, self-study, CPED framework, CPED principles

Abstract

This special issue investigates how Education Doctorate (EdD) programs can engage in self‑study as a generative form of organizational learning rather than a compliance‑driven task. Seven CPED member institutions conducted a structured self‑study using two rubrics grounded in the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED) Framework, examining the implementation and impact of CPED principles across program artifacts, stakeholder experiences, and field‑based outcomes. Analysis of syllabi, dissertations‑in‑practice, interviews, and program documents revealed strong commitments to integrating theory and practice, inquiry‑driven learning, equity, stakeholder engagement, and continuous improvement. The project also surfaced a common set of self‑study phases—purpose setting, team formation, evidence collection, collaborative analysis, and action planning—that supported shared sensemaking and program refinement. Collectively, the findings demonstrate how rubric‑guided self‑study can deepen institutional coherence, illuminate strengths and gaps, and advance ongoing improvement in EdD program design and practice.

References

Archbald, D. A. (2008). Research versus problem-based dissertations: An exploratory assessment of epistemological and institutional forces shaping educational research. Journal of School Leadership, 18(2), 175–204.

Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Harvard Education Press.

Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (2024). Guiding Principles Implementation Rubric and CPED Framework© Impact Rubric [Unpublished Manuscript]. School of Education, University of Pittsburgh.

Carnegie Project for the Educational Doctorate (CPED). (2010). Design concept definitions. http://cpedinitiative.org

Grunow, A., Park, S., & Bennett, B. (2024). Journey to improvement: A team guide to systems change in education, health care, and social welfare. Rowman & Littlefield.

Hinnant-Crawford, B. N. (2020). Improvement science in education: A primer. Myers Education Press

Leach, L. F., Reyes, J. M., Baker, C., Glaman, R., Barkley, J. M., Beach, D. M., … Bunch, P. (2020). Approaching EdD program redesign as a problem of practice. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 5(1) 7–15. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2020.100

Militello, M., Argent, J., & Tredway, L. (2023). A better EdD by design: An inquiry-focused, equity-based dissertation to change leadership practice. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 18(3), 426–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/19427751221087728

Perry, J. A. (2010). Reclaiming the education doctorate: Three cases of processes and roles in institutional change (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Perry, J. A. (2013). Introduction Carnegie project on the education doctorate: The education doctorate – A degree for our time. Planning and Changing Journal. 44(3/4), 113–126.

Perry, J. A., Zambo, D., & Crow, R. (2020). The improvement science dissertation in practice: A guide for faculty and students. Myers Education Press.

Perry, J. A. (2023). Reclaiming the education doctorate: A guidebook for (re)designing EdD programs. Stylus Publishing.

Phillips, J. C., Geller, K. D., & Mawritz, K. J. (2018). Program innovation and design in an era of accountability: EdD faculty work as a community of practice. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 3(2) 30–39. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2018.64

Ryan, A. M., & Watson, S. (2021). Impact and inclusion: Transforming an EdD program into a crucible for systems change. Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 6(1), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2021.123

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.

Tanzer, K. D., Jackson, T., Alvarez, N. A., & Hughes, J. (2025). Applying the four lenses to the self-study process to identify blind spots and opportunities. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 17(5), Article 102321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2025.102321

Wergin, J. F. (2011). Rebooting the EdD. Harvard Educational Review, 81(1), 119–140.

Young, M. D. (2013). From the director: Is the conversation on the educational doctorate leading to better programming? UCEA Review, 54(1), 15–17.

Downloads

Published

2026-09-22

How to Cite

Pape, S. J., & Perry, J. A. (2026). CPED Framework Implementation and Impact Rubrics Self-Study: An Overview . Impacting Education: Journal on Transforming Professional Practice, 11(4), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.5195/ie.2026.622

Issue

Vol. 11 No. 4 (2026): Themed-CPED Programs Self-Study

Section

Themed-CPED Programs Self-Study

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Stephen J. Pape, Jill A. Perry

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.