What We Know from CPED’s What We Know from CPED’s FIPSE Findings and FIPSE Findings and

Where We Go from TheseWhere We Go from These     

Jill Alexa Perry, PhDExecutive Director, Carnegie Project on the

Education DoctorateDuquesne UniversityDebby Zambo, PhD

Associate Director, Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate Acknowledgements to: Susan Wunder, PhD

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Presentation Overview:

• Data (CPED’s FIPSIE Grant) Phase 1, 2 & 3

• Data Analysis (What we know and How we know it)• Where we go from here

Fund for the Improvement of Post-secondary Education (FIPSE) Grant • received in 2010• focused on 21 original Phase I members • sought to document and evaluate:

1. change in the structure of graduate schools 2. change in the signature learning processes,

learning environments, and patterns of engagement of faculty and candidates in CPED-influenced EdD programs

3. fidelity to a set of guiding principles developed in Phase 1

Disseminate lessons learned and best practices.

Theoretical Frame

Diffusion of Innovation (Rogers, 1995)

Four essential components: 1. the innovation (CPED)2. communication channels 3. time4. social system

Data and Analytical ProcessDATA: 21 cases

3 surveys (student, faculty, researcher) closed and open ended items

ANALYSIS: aimed at ensuring credibility/trustworthiness/validity /reliability

Layers to the process•Data read reread - examined for answers to RQs•Codes, Themes, Assertions

Institutions turned to CPED because they were facing internal and external challenges:• Dwindling applicants – colleges/departments were losing revenue• ABDs - low completion rates • Frustration (administration, faculty, students) - EdD and/or PhD not meeting students’

needs (EdD lacked its own identity)• Demand for school leaders

CPED provided:• A common language/definition of the EdD as a professional degree• Useable principles and design features aimed at developing scholarly practitioners and

meeting students’ needs• Networking opportunities with like-minded peers - access to national thinking• Opportunities to see if ideas were aligned with others (validated)• Prestige - cache • Transparency (involving outsiders in design process/understanding)

CPED has also met with resistance from administrators and faculty which suggests early and full engagement necessary.

Claim 1: CPED has impacted institutional policies and practices related to doctoral study and these support the EdD as a professional degree.

Claim #2 - CPED has had an impact on programs in terms of:•Design•Cohorts •Time to degree•Completion rates •Environments•Dissertations•Committees•Student/faculty patterns of engagement•Research

Variability remains - CPED provided programmatic information in the form of principles and design features and depending on context (support, where a program was in its design/implementation process) this information was adopted and disseminated in varying degrees and in different ways.

Claim #3 CPED has had an Impact on Deans

•new ways to bargain and collaborate across their institutions and others•their leadership valued (communication channels)•their support of faculty crucial for program redesign success

CPED influenced faculty in 4 ways:• Positions (advertised and filled) • Work environments (workload and reward structures)• National network of information and support

• Convenings (social system of support)• Understanding of students

• Who they were - Practitioners working full-time• What they wanted – Goals – solve problems of practice

Continued challenges:• change as a democratic process – open communication channels • time to work with students and redesign programs • faculty not on board with changes removed from or left programs• untenured faculty struggle to understand how programmatic work and work with

CPED fit into tenure/reward process• practitioners recruited but often do not feel a part

Claim #3 CPED has had an Impact on Faculty

CPED Has Had an Impact on Students

• views of doctoral training in relation to their professional practice

• views of the cohort experience as communities of scholar practitioners

Phase IIExternal evaluation of the CPED-FIPSE project

June - July 2013 surveyed Phase I & II faculty PIs

sought to learn CPED’s impact across member institutions

RQ : What attracted them to CPED and what benefits did they

gain ?

Attracted to:•the CPED philosophy •they wanted or needed to modify an existing program

Benefits included:•universities whose program designs were complete - core CPED principles embedded in their programs•programs in redesign phase - convenings and the models from

Phase I member programs

Phase IIIInstitutions outside of CPED had been following the Consortium’s work and developing programs utilizing CPED principles and design concepts

CPED principles influenced the EdD process in three ways•aligning current program goals and core values with CPED;•utilizing CPED principles as a launching point for redesign;•adopting CPED principles into existing programs. They also indicated that they wanted to learn more.

Phase II members want:•networking opportunities•the Consortium as a place to share and learn and build a broader understanding of the Education Doctorate

Activity: Design Ideas for CPED’s Next Research Agenda

Research questions that need to be asked.

Methods (research designs) that need to be used to get answers to the questions.

Funding sources that need to be pursued.

How you can contribute.

0Debby Zambo, Ph.D.0Associate Director, Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate & Professor Emerita Arizona State University0(c) 623-695-0682   http://cpedinitiative.org