Designing a Professional Practice Doctoral Degree in Educational Technology: Signature Pedagogies, Implications and Recommendations

Kara Dawson, Cathy Cavanaugh, Christopher Sessums, Erik W. Black and Swapna Kumar

VOL. 25, No. 3

Abstract

In this article we outline the three dimensions of signature pedagogy (Shulman, 2005) guiding the design of our professional practice doctoral degree in Educational Technology. This program was developed based on our experiences with the Carnegie Initiative on the Education Doctorate and work with many students for whom the Ph.D. was not an exact match with their career goals. We also share preliminary data related to program effectiveness and provide recommendations for others interested in designing professional practice programs. Through this work we have come to believe Educational Technology is a discipline ripe with potential to meet the needs of scholars and professional practitioners through terminal degree programs differentiated based on career goals and contexts.

Résumé

Dans cet article, nous décrivons les trois dimensions de la didactique appliquée, dit signature pedagogy en anglais ayant guidé la conception de notre programme de doctorat professionnel en technologie éducative. Ce programme a été élaboré à partir de nos expériences réalisées dans le cadre de la Carnegie Initiative on the Education Doctorate et du travail effectué avec de nombreux étudiants pour qui le diplôme doctoral traditionnel―axé sur une carrière académique―ne correspondait pas à leurs objectifs de carrière. Nous partageons aussi des résultats préliminaires en lien avec l’efficacité des programmes et fournissons des conseils pour ceux qui s’intéressent à la conception de programmes de type professionnel. Par ces travaux, nous en sommes venus à croire que la technologie éducative est une discipline qui déborde de potentiel pour répondre aux besoins des chercheurs académiques et des praticiens professionnels par l’élaboration de programmes doctoraux qui se différencient selon les objectifs de carrière et les contextes.

Introduction

Since 2007, we have been engaged with colleagues participating in The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate, a comprehensive effort to critically examine doctoral degrees leading to careers in professional practice (Perry & Imig, 2008). In Fall 2008 we enrolled our first cohort in a professional practice degree for educational technologists modeled after components of the Carnegie initiative.

In this article we outline the three dimensions of signature pedagogy (Shulman, 2005) guiding the design of our new professional practice doctoral degree. We also share preliminary data related to program effectiveness, provide recommendations for others interesting in designing professional practice programs and make the case that our field is particularly well suited to carefully distinguishing between the goals and outcomes of Ed.D. and Ph.D. programs.

Literature Review

Scholarly discourse related to education doctoral degrees is not new (Osguthorpe & Wong, 1993; Dill & Morrison, 1985), however, such dialogue has recently proliferated in journals and reports (Guthrie, 2009; Neumann, 2005; Shulman, Golde, Conklin Bueschel, & Garabedian, 2006). A recurring theme in these discussions relates to definitions of and differentiation between the Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) and Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degrees conferred in schools of education.

According to some, the Ph.D. and Ed.D. serve different purposes (Shulman et. al.,2006). The Ph.D., sometimes referred to as the research doctorate in the field of education, is generally intended to prepare stewards of a discipline while the Ed.D., sometimes referred to as the professional practice doctorate, is designed to prepare stewards of practice (Perry & Imig, 2008). According to this distinction, earning a Ph.D. prepares one to work in university and other research settings to explore, discover and disseminate new knowledge in the field. The Ed.D. prepares one to apply research-based knowledge and to generate contextually based knowledge to improve and advance practice. We do not believe these goals are mutually exclusive but we do believe the signature pedagogies (Shulman, 2005) or fundamental beliefs and teaching strategies used to prepare students enrolled in these different degrees can and should be distinctive.

Educational Technology, a field with long history of practice-focused domains (Saettler, 1990; Reiser, 2001), is an ideal discipline within which to differentiate between the goals and contexts of professional practice degrees (i.e., our Ed.D.) and research degrees (i.e., the Ph.D.). What follows is a description of how we used signature pedagogies (Shulman, 2005) as a framework to design a new professional practice doctoral degree in Educational Technology.

The Three Dimensions of Signature Pedagogies

Signature pedagogies have three dimensions: a deep structure or a set of beliefs about how knowledge is acquired; an implicit structure or a set of beliefs related to professional attitudes, values and dispositions; and a surface structure or the ways in which teaching and learning occurs (Shulman, 2005). The first two dimensions are theoretical in nature while the third dimension—surface structure—operationalizes beliefs about knowledge acquisition and professional attitudes, values and dispositions. We begin by describing the deep and implicit structures underlying our professional practice doctoral program and then provide examples of how they are supported through program design.

Deep Structure

Doctoral education of any flavor is often defined as an enculturation into a community of practice (Lave & and Wenger, 1991). If one is to ascribe to Shulman and Perry and Imig’s distinctions (2008), Ph.D. programs are designed to enculturate students into a community of educational researchers while professional practice doctoral programs are designed to enculturate students into a community of professional practitioners. The challenges associated with enculturating students into a community of educational researchers have been well documented in recent years (Eisenhart & DeHaan, 2005; Labaree, 2003).

Because many Ed.D. students are enrolled part-time (in our program 100% are part-time students), enculturation for students within a professional practice doctoral program entails complexities not associated with the research doctorate. Students must learn to become part of a community of doctoral-level professional practitioners while simultaneously engaging in their local and distributed professional communities.

We believe knowledge is acquired through the intentional integration of university learning and professional contexts within a learning community supported by interaction, collaboration, reflection, resource sharing and support and built upon a common purpose (Palloff & Pratt, 2007).

A main purpose of our professional practice learning community is to develop foundational knowledge in the field as well as deep knowledge in a particular area with the expressed goal of solving contextual problems and advancing practice. We refer to this area of expertise as a niche.

Foundational knowledge in any field is that knowledge which separates members of a field from nonmembers (Guha & Lenat, 1994). Niche areas, then, represent areas of specialization or expertise within a field. Niche areas for Educational Technology may include, but are certainly not limited to, K-12 technology integration and adoption, online and blended learning, computer-mediated communication, games and simulations, instructional design, or technology planning and leadership. Each niche area in Educational Technology may be actualized in a variety of contexts, including K-12 schools, post-secondary institutions, business, industry, or government.

Implicit Structure

Implicit structure involves the attitudes, values and dispositions of the profession. In many ways, those earning a professional practice doctoral degree must develop dispositions similar to those earning a research doctoral degree. They must develop a propensity toward teaching, scholarship and leadership (Boyer, 1990). The difference lies in how and where the work is actualized. Those earning traditional research degrees tend to work in university settings and operate according to tenure and promotion guidelines set forth at their institutions; although this trend is changing as tenure-track opportunities decline (Morris, 2009).

Conversely, those earning professional practice degrees work in a myriad of settings. Individuals with doctoral level expertise in Educational Technology are sought by school districts needing technology leaders, curriculum leaders and superintendents, postsecondary institutions moving programs online, community colleges transforming themselves into state colleges, and corporate, non-profit and business organizations striving to use technology to promote and extend organizational missions. It is quite plausible that some of our graduates will work in each of these settings. Teaching, scholarship, leadership and service are essential dispositions in each of these settings but we must prepare our students to actualize them in a variety of ways since evaluation procedures common for those with research doctorates (i.e., tenure and promotion) do not often apply in these situations.

To develop such skills, students in professional practice doctoral programs must break away from the one-on-one mentoring style prevalent in most research doctoral programs and adopt a model of composite mentoring (Packard, 2003) in which mentoring comes from many places including faculty, colleagues and fellow students to name a few. Through composite mentoring students begin to see that knowledge they gain is not just from the classes they take, but from the relationships they build—both inside and outside of class. In many cases, these relationships are based on the exchange of exemplar narratives and cases used to illustrate the importance of program content and experiences to the individual student’s professional role (Graesser, Olde, & Klettke, 2002). We talk about constructivist education, with the teacher moving from the sage on the stage to the guide on the side. In some sense, this is constructivist mentoring. Instead of a faculty member being the sole advisor, or Chair, as in many Ph.D. programs, professional practice doctoral students should have an opportunity to benefit from multiple mentors during the program.

Likewise, professional practice doctoral students must develop habits of mind for success in teaching, scholarship, leadership and service. These habits of mind include, but are not limited to: persistence, intentionality, flexibility, reflexivity/metacognition, critical-mindedness, creativity, clarity of expression in oral and written communication and a stance toward continuous learning and professionalism (Costa & Kallick, 2008).

Surface Structures

Signature pedagogy provides a useful framework by which to consider professional practice doctoral degrees, however, the distinction between deep and implicit structures are artificial in practice since the tenets of one cannot reasonably be separated from the other. Thus, we present the surface structure, or examples of what teaching looks like based on our deep and implicit structures, in table format first so readers can visualize how the various strategies align with the theoretical underpinnings of our professional practice doctoral program (See Table 1). We break our surface structure into three areas: (1) the learning environment, (2) the community and (3) authentic assessments. Of course, there are overlaps among these areas but they are distinctive enough to provide a picture of how we operationalize teaching and learning strategies based on our deep and implicit structures.

Table 1. Structures

Learning Environment

Our professional practice degree is offered in a blended learning environment (Graham, 2005). Students take online courses during the academic year and participate in campus-based, face-to-face sessions for a portion of each summer. In essence, a blended learning environment actualizes the notion of contextualization (Shulman et. al., 2006) by enabling students to maintain their professional positions, providing contexts within which to study, apply and reflect on university learning. The blended environment enhances student interaction with faculty, co-learners, and content and is job-embedded which encourages immediate application of the content in a professional context in meaningful interaction with leaders and other professionals, thereby expanding each student’s professional learning network.

The majority of the program involves students participating online and at a distance from campus, from each other and from faculty members. Thus, we considered transactional distance (Moore, 2003) and structured the program to develop meaningful personal and professional relationships. Coursework, seminars, and online social learning environments engage students beyond shallow interactions and create a culture of cooperation by providing opportunities and activities that require research, collaboration, sharing, and intentional reflection.

Online Courses

Our online courses are designed using current theory related to designing and delivering online content and include features such as multiple forms of synchronous and asynchronous interaction (Moore, 2007), frequent opportunities for reflection (Ainsworth, & Loizou, 2003), and support for a variety of learning styles via distributed practice with concepts and skills (Cepeda, Pashler, Vul, Wixted, & Rohrer, 2006), multimedia resources (Moreno & Valdes, 2005), and multiple assessment formats (McTighe, & O‘Connor, 2005).

Coursework for the program falls into four areas: core courses, cognate courses, research courses, and seminars. The core courses include foundational knowledge in Educational Technology while cognate courses help students as they are developing knowledge within their niche. The research courses enable students to study and apply quantitative, qualitative and evaluation methods. These research courses prepare students to analyze and critically discuss reports and articles in the field, to identify historical and current trends in educational technology research and to develop and implement studies within their contexts.

Seminars

Seminars are offered every summer and include a one-week campus-based experience. Students prepare for the seminar via a series of online assignments and experiences, attend the face-to-face sessions and complete follow-up online assignments and experiences. These seminars help students develop a personal association with our university through interactions with each other, program faculty, faculty outside our program, administrators, librarians and face-to-face students. Students also participate in a local conference hosted by SAGE (The Student Alliance of Graduates in Education). Each of these interactions is structured to support students as they work toward developing habits of mind essential for success in teaching, scholarship, service and leadership at the doctoral level.

Community of Practice

An online community of practice that merges university learning (i.e., coursework, face-to-face summer sessions, faculty and peer interactions, etc.) and professional work is a key component of our professional practice doctoral program. The online community created for and by the students in our cohort provides a venue for continuing conversations outside of the formal class settings and supports composite mentoring by allowing for collaboration, resource sharing and peer support. This group space allows for continuous informal learning opportunities because the participants have access to each other throughout the year and are not limited by time, date, or distance (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004, Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002). The community also supports several habits of mind important to our implicit structure including reflexivity/metacognition, clarity of expression and a stance toward continuous learning.

The online group space and community also facilitate sharing and provides support for the challenges faced by these full-time professionals who are integrating scholarly work into their daily profession. It also makes those challenges transparent to faculty and mentors who are able to respond by creating opportunities or adapting their strategies.

Before being accepted into the cohort our students signed a letter of agreement in which they acknowledged their responsibility to fully participate in an online community throughout their doctoral program. At the beginning of the program the students selected Google Groups as their online community platform but the platform choice is irrelevant. More critical to the success of an online community are ground rules or norms (Buysse, Sparkman, & Wesley, 2003).

To increase the likelihood of a successful online community of practice, our group established ground rules or norms for working within and building the online community using a protocol from the National School Reform Faculty. These norms created fixed points around which participants can negotiate their positions, understand what they are expected to share, when to participate, and what to expect from others in the community. The fact that the group developed the norms enabled them to take ownership of the community and strive to make it successful.

Niche Groups

Within the online community, we also established smaller niche groups. These niche groups are similar to the leader-scholar communities recently explained by Olson and Clark (2009). Niche groups of 5-7 students with common contexts and interests function as “neighborhoods” within the larger online community of practice. Niche groups provide a forum in which composite mentoring is central. The operation of each niche group varies based on the individuals in the group but each follows the norms established for the larger group and has multiple opportunities to work with and learn from both colleagues and faculty.

Synchronous Sessions

The cohort also participates in bi-monthly real-time conferencing sessions. Session topics may be faculty or student-driven and range from discussion about a particular issue to information sharing related to a recent conference or professional event to collegial support and mentoring. These synchronous sessions further support community enculturation, composite mentoring and multiple habits of mind.

Milestones

Time to degree completion is often lengthy in research doctoral programs (Thurgood, Golladay & Hill, 2006). While numerous factors often contribute to this, the individual and potentially isolating nature of qualifying exam and dissertation experiences is frequently identified as a major factor (Golde, 2000). In keeping with our deep structure stance related to developing a community of practice, we identified yearly milestones students must meet to continue in the program. Keeping all students on the same general path throughout the degree facilitates development of a strong community, allows for significant levels of peer support and streamlines the mentoring and advising roles faculty play at any given point in the program. Milestones relate to the number of credits completed each year, participation in the online community, logistical steps toward degree completion such as completing program plans and academic steps toward degree completion such as completing qualifying exams. Students not meeting milestones have the option to join another Ed.D. cohort in the future.

Authentic Assessments

Qualifying examinations and dissertations are cornerstones of doctoral level education (Katz, 1997). Qualifying exams provide evidence that students have reached an acceptable level of expertise within their chosen field and successful completion enables students to move to the final doctoral stage; often referred to as the dissertation (or more recently the capstone experience) stage. Our professional practice program views both the qualifying exam and capstone experience as processes in which students expand, improve and document competence.

Qualifying Examination Process

In our program students advance to doctoral candidacy by demonstrating foundational and niche knowledge in the field, the ability to integrate university learning and their professional work, evidence of habits of mind essential to future success and beginning evidence of scholarly competence. Qualifying exams involve written products, digital artifacts and oral presentation and dialogue. In the first year of the program students study the history of educational technology, craft a personal definition of the field and identify a niche, or area in which they strive to develop expertise. They also create an annotated bibliography (Coté, Goldman, & Saul, 1998; Boote & Beile, 2005) of studies within their niche. Students are expected to revise, expand and improve these two artifacts each semester of the program and to document the modifications made throughout the program. An explanation of this evolution, supported by scholarly citations and reflective commentary, is an integral part of the oral exam. In addition to demonstrating foundational and niche knowledge, through this component students also demonstrate several habits of mind including persistence and reflexivity/metacognition.

In addition, during the first year of the program students are introduced to an Educational Technology wiki collaboratively developed and maintained by faculty and Ph.D. students (Dawson et al., in press). This wiki is a compilation of theories, concepts, people, associations and journals integral to our field. The wiki contains more content than is possible to cover in traditional coursework and students know from the first year of the program that analysis, synthesis and evaluation of this information as it relates to their niche area is essential to their success. Students are also encouraged to contribute information to the wiki. The wiki provides a scaffold for learning but places the onus of learning clearly on the students and supports the habits of mind often referred to as intentionality and critical-mindedness.

Another portion of the qualifying exam process involves completion of two scholarly activities. Scholarly activities must have relevance to the student’s professional context, demonstrate research competence and may include, but are not limited to writing and submitting a grant proposal, giving a professional presentation at a state or national conference, facilitating and evaluating a series of professional development opportunities, writing and submitting an article for an educational technology or education journal, conducting and presenting an action research inquiry or writing and submitting a policy brief.

The qualifying artifacts are submitted to a faculty and peer committee within a clear and coherent framework prior to the oral exam. During the oral examination process students briefly present their artifacts and dialogue with faculty and colleagues about their work. Both faculty and peer feedback are included in the assessment process; supporting our emphasis on both composite mentoring and learning within a community of practice.

Capstone Experience

Unlike the uni-dimensional focus on research in traditional dissertations, our capstone experience is a multi-dimensional opportunity for students to demonstrate competence in teaching, scholarship and leadership related to their niche and professional context. The capstone experience entails compilation of comprehensive academic artifacts demonstrating competence in each area. The structure of these academic artifacts is somewhat flexible, however, academic writing is central to the process.

Specifically, our capstone experience has four required components: an introduction, a literature review, capstone components and conclusions. The introduction and literature review are similar in nature and purpose to chapter one and two in a traditional dissertation (Roberts, 2004). Students find the annotated bibliography started during the first year of the program helpful as they embark on a systemic literature review (Boote & Beile, 2005).

The third component deviates from traditional dissertation work as students showcase their proficiency in teaching, scholarship and leadership in an integrated fashion. The teaching artifact may involve any formalized investigation and dissemination of teaching practices, curriculum development, instructional design, or professional development. The key to this component is extending the work of a practitioner to the work of a professional practitioner-leader who studies the quality and impact of the teaching and shares this knowledge with others (Austin, 2002).

The scholarship artifact for the capstone experience must be an article demonstrating research competence and deemed submission-ready in advance by the capstone committee. This article may be submitted to any type of publication read by others in the field. The point is to have students disseminate their work in written format in a venue appropriate for their professional context.

The last requirement for the capstone experience is leadership competence which may involve serving as chair of a particular committee and documenting tangible outcomes, organizing a strand of a conference, or serving as principal investigator on a grant related to the school or organization.

The final component of the capstone project is similar in many ways to chapter five of a traditional dissertation (Roberts, 2004). Much like the final chapter of a traditional dissertation, this section presents a challenge for students as it engages each habit of mind targeted throughout the program and requires deep levels of evaluation, evidence of futuristic planning and academic synthesis of the work.

The components of the capstone experience are compiled and submitted to a capstone committee consisting of faculty and peers. Then, the students share their work with the committee in a formal presentation followed by dialogue with the committee. Table 2 outlines what a capstone experience may look like for a professional practice doctoral student employed as a technology integration professional development specialist in a school district. Using the Guskey’s levels of professional development evaluation (1998), this student might design and deliver a professional development sequence related to a point of emphasis in the district (i.e., use of student response systems, student-created digital media, use of social media, etc.). This sequence would be built on literature related to best practices in instructional design and technology integration professional development. The professional development sequence coupled with questionnaires gauging the first two levels of evaluation would serve as the teaching component of the capstone experience. Then, using teacher inquiry (Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, 2008) this student would systematically and intentionally study the next three levels of the framework. This work would culminate in a submission-ready article. Finally, this student would demonstrate leadership competence by sharing results with the district superintendent and making recommendations for improving the district-wide professional development strategies.

Table 2: Sample Capstone Experience

Preliminary Program Outcomes

All 26 members (28% Male, 72% female) of the current cohort work in full time, education-related jobs in which they are responsible for promoting learning and facilitating performance in their context. Approximately 60% of the cohort works in traditional K-12 environments, and 40% in corporate, higher education or non-traditional K-12 environments (e.g., virtual schools). For several, education represents a second or even third career. Members of the cohort have had professional experiences that, in addition to teaching, have included law enforcement, administration, Fortune 500 companies, state government and higher education.

Our program team is implementing a longitudinal effort to evaluate this professional practice program using Kirkpatrick’s four levels:

• Reaction (Level 1) - how students felt about the learning experience
• Learning (Level 2) - increase in knowledge after attending a course or a program
• Behavior (Level 3) - the extent of learning that is applied on the job or in the professional environment
• Results (Level 4) - the impact of the learning experience on the business or the environment.

Preliminary results based on surveys, interviews, artifact analysis and observations suggest that students are enjoying their learning experience (Kirkpatrick Level 1) and are advancing through the program according established milestones (Kirkpatrick Level 2). Of the 26 cohort members, 25 are still actively engaged in the cohort (one withdrew due to medical reasons). During Summer 2010, 21 of the 25 students (84%) were able to present qualifying exams to their committees as outlined in their milestones. Fourteen (67%) of these students passed their exams while five (23%) are actively working on revisions and two (9%) have opted to pursue an Educational Specialist (Ed.S.) degree instead of continuing in the program. At this point in the program, we are on target to exceed the 55-58% completion rate reported by the Council of Graduate Schools (2008) in its analysis of completion and attrition in PhD programs in 24 US and Canadian universities.

In addition, ongoing research related to Level 3 (Behavior) and Level 4 (Results) demonstrate program participants are disseminating knowledge gained from the program within formal and informal environments, forging connections within and across disciplines, emerging in new leadership roles within their contexts and designing new initiatives based on knowledge gained within the program (Kumar, Cavanaugh, Black, Dawson & Sessums, 2011).

Implications

The preliminary results of our evaluation process coupled with our personal experiences working in the program lead us to believe there is a need for professional practice doctoral degrees in Educational Technology and that such degrees will enable programs across the country to continue to grow and have influence within a variety of educational contexts.

Need for Professional Practice Degrees

We are aware of the dialogue and disagreement surrounding professional practice doctoral degrees (Evans, 2007), however, we side with Shulman (2007) in believing that different terminal degrees with different purposes are necessary to ensure individuals are equipped to succeed in both research and professional practice environments. We also believe Educational Technology is uniquely positioned to make such distinctions because of the large number of practice-oriented positions available in K-12, post-secondary, business, industry and not-for-profit environments and the relatively small but stable number of research-oriented jobs in universities, centers and think tanks.

Development of this degree has resulted in refinements to our Ph.D. program. It used to be that all students, regardless of professional goals and interests enrolled in a Ph.D. program; some were interested in working in academia while others drove in for evening classes, struggled to become part of the academic community and completed the same coursework and requirements as their campus-based counterparts, even though they planned to work in completely different environments upon graduation. Now, we can better meet the needs of the diverse students interested in our program. For example, we are able to have more focused Ph.D. courses and seminars because each person is working toward the similar goal of obtaining a research-focused position; most often a faculty position in a college or university. We are also able to offer our professional practice Ed.D. to K-12 personnel wishing to lead within their district or to instructional designers wishing to advance in their companies.

Growth and Influence in the Field

We also believe that while blended professional practice degrees are not now common, the convergence of increased online learning opportunities (Allen & Seaman, 2008) and interest in and demand for professional practice degrees (Perry & Imig, 2008) will result in an explosion of these degrees.

In fact, during Fall 2010 we will begin our second cohort of professional practice doctoral students. Over 400 individuals expressed interest in the program and 86 individuals had completed applications by our admissions deadline. After an extensive review of materials and phone interviews we enrolled another cohort of 25 students (29% acceptance rate). We are still working through demographic data on these individuals but about two-thirds of them are from non-K-12 environments and the average GRE score for the group was 1127 (524-Verbal; 599-Quantitative). There are also nearly 100 individuals who have already expressed interest in our Fall 2012 cohort. This information supports our notion that Educational Technology is ripe with potential for clearly distinguishing between professional practice Ed.D. and Ph.D. programs. Programs that venture into this area will have an opportunity to impact Educational Technology practices within a wide variety of contexts.

Recommendations

The landscape of American higher education is changing rapidly (Barone, 2003) and in the previous section we have provided evidence from one program that demand for professional practice degrees in Educational Technology is high. We offer the following recommendations for other programs looking to develop or revise a professional doctoral program in Educational Technology.

Use Signature Pedagogies as a Design Framework

We referred to the concepts and strategies presented here as signature pedagogies, however, a more appropriate term may be initial signature pedagogies because the professional practice degree is in its infancy and signature pedagogies are defined as pedagogies that are “both pervasive and routine, cutting across topics and courses, programs and institutions” (Shulman, 2005, p. 56). Using signature pedagogies as a framework forced us to debate and dialogue about our underlying beliefs and notions regarding professional practice degrees. We believe our initial signature pedagogies, or some variation of them, have potential to evolve into signature pedagogies for professional practice doctoral degrees in Educational Technology. However, each program team should go through the process of identifying beliefs regarding how knowledge is acquired (deep structure), desired professional attitudes, values and dispositions (implicit structure) and the ways in which teaching and learning occurs (surface structure).

Collaborative faculty is key

The traditional notion of faculty operating in isolation has been deteriorating for some time now (Gappa, Austin & Trice, 2007), however, it is still the norm in some institutions. Collaborative faculty working toward program goals and working with students via composite mentoring, while simultaneously working toward individual goals related to tenure and/or promotion, is a balancing act and should not be taken lightly. Faculty in our program each agreed to read Lencioni’s book entitled The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable (2002). This quick, easy-to-read book demonstrates the necessary components of a team that works for a common goal while simultaneously working toward individual goals. While a book study may not be appropriate for all faculty teams, explicit attention to building collaboration will provide an important foundation for program development. Based on our experiences, we suspect such collaboration will be nearly impossible within certain programs and, thus, administrators seeking to support such degrees should look to program areas where such a culture exists and where quality individual and program area work is occurring.

Build the faculty team strategically

Our program team consists of two tenured professors, one clinical assistant professor, one individual in a post-doctoral position and one individual with a degree in Educational Technology, whose primary assignment is as a social science researcher working on issues of technology and children’s health in the College of Medicine. This diverse team has many advantages. The tenured professors have demonstrated success in balancing program development with teaching, research and service and serve as co-leaders in the program. While they have previous work experience outside of higher education, they have been in professorial roles for over a decade. The clinical assistant professor and the post-doc were strategically hired because of their recent experiences working in environments similar to those in which our students work or strive to work and because of their demonstrated expertise in teaching. Jointly, these two faculty members have recent experiences in corporate environments, K-12 schools, instructional design and post-secondary distance education and faculty development offices.

The social science researcher brings a unique perspective to the team in that he considers the ways in which educational technologies impact society and, in particular, issues associated with children’s health.

While it is not always possible to hand pick a faculty team, attention to diversity of roles, expertise and interests is crucial when developing a team to run a professional practice doctoral degree. An Ed.D. program run entirely by tenure line professors may be neither feasible nor appropriate given the nature of professional practice doctorates and the institutional expectations of tenure-line faculty.

Collaborate with Research, Evaluation and Methodology (REM) Faculty

Our College has research requirements for doctoral students and we needed to work with our REM faculty to help them understand the goals for our professional practice doctoral degree. We wanted research courses that would help our professional practice students understand, critically analyze and interpret research articles and reports. We also wanted them to be able to design smaller-scale, locally based studies and evaluations.

Three research courses for professional practice doctoral students were designed and approved by our College:

• Foundations of Research Methodology for Practicing Professionals I (3)
• Foundations of Research Methodology for Practicing Professionals II (3)
• Reading, Designing and Conducting Qualitative Research (3)

Students also take a program-specific research course for a minimum of 12 research hours.

Transition to online teaching

Members of our Educational Technology team have had extensive experience in online teaching and learning that ranges from designing and developing courses to developing entire programs (Dawson, 2006). However, other faculty members integral to our program, including our REM colleagues, were neither experienced nor comfortable in online educational experiences. Such faculty members need systematic support to conceptualize and develop online courses. We used the services of instructional designers within our Office of Distance Education. Other universities may have different types of support available but support for faculty to transition online is essential when designing blended programs.

Be aware of upcoming technologies to further promote online community

With the rapid development in educational technologies, educators and administrators are constantly being challenged to make decisions about appropriate technology for online teaching and learning (Bates & Poole, 2003).

We currently employ a component-based system approach to online teaching and learning which allows us to mix and match an array of web applications for a specific use. This solution allows us to easily and inexpensively develop diverse online learning environments (Ferdig, Mishra and Zhao, 2004). For example, we use Moodle as our learning management system (LMS) as well as numerous other tools such as e-mail, Google groups, weblogs and wikis. While many of these tools are also available within Moodle, they are typically associated with a particular course instance rather than a more longitudinal online community of practice. In addition, given the rapid and evolving nature of educational technologies, static solutions such as learning management systems need constant updates. As such, the concept of a component-based system offers us an alternative perspective as a means of managing online teaching and learning.

However, the component-based system is not without problems. The use of so many different tools often makes one feel disconnected, and challenges both faculty and students to identify which tool is most appropriate for sharing, communicating and collaborating, given the number of activities in which we engaged. Yet, we believe the component-based system is currently a better option than working completely within a LMS, which is bound by course instances and accessible only to those enrolled in particular courses.

Dynamic, flexible component-based systems are currently under development or in beta testing (e.g., Elgg) and we are working with our College’s Office of Distance Education to determine if any of these may be a suitable LMS replacement for us. Others seeking to develop online communities of practices within their professional practice doctoral programs will want to keep these developments on their radar and make adoption decisions based on sound principles of effective online teaching and learning such as those outlined by Bates and Poole (2003) and numerous SLOAN documents.

Collaborate with other program areas

At least two professional practice doctoral programs are in the development stage in our college. One targets secondary special educators interested in improving the performance of at-risk students in online and blended classroom environments. Another relates to curriculum, teaching and teacher education and targets educators working in high poverty environments. We have had discussions with both programs about how we can support each other and streamline our programs. We have coordinated when the research courses will be offered so as not to overwhelm either students or REM faculty. We have also discussed offering cognates in each other’s program. Our students would have an opportunity to earn a cognate within their degrees and vice versa. This kind of inter-program and inter-department collaboration will become more essential as resources for universities shrink while expectations simultaneously rise.

Initial face-to-face meeting

We did not meet our entire cohort face-to-face until the summer after their first academic year of courses. This meeting proved very fruitful and a stronger community was clearly evident at the end of the week as evidenced by the subsequently increased traffic within the online community. For institutions beginning hybrid or online professional practice doctoral programs, we recommend a brief, initial face-to-face meeting before classes begin. We plan to meet with our new cohort on a Friday evening and Saturday before the first semester of classes. This provides an opportunity to clearly explain the goals of the professional practice degree, establish relationships between and among faculty and students, orient students to the library system and connect students to faculty from other areas teaching within the program.

Take the admission process seriously

Interest in blended doctoral programs in Educational Technology is high as evidenced by inquiries about our program, however, many potential students understand neither the purpose of professional practice degree programs nor the commitments associated with doctoral study. We carefully examined each application, analyzed writing samples and reference letters and conducted telephone interviews with potential candidates. During these interviews we asked about what they had read lately, their professional activities outside of those required by a job, professional organizations to which they belonged and how a professional practice degree would help them meet their career goals. It was not too difficult to ascertain which candidates better fit a professional practice doctoral program. We also explained the distinctions between our Ph.D. and Ed.D. programs and the commitments associated with acceptance into the Ed.D. cohort. While this work was time-consuming, it enabled us to secure a strong cohort of students and we encourage other programs to take their admission process seriously.

Conclusion

In this article we outline the three dimensions of signature pedagogy (Shulman, 2005) guiding the design of our new professional practice doctoral degree in Educational Technology. This program was developed based on our experiences with the Carnegie Initiative on the Education Doctorate and work with many students for whom the Ph.D. was not an exact match for their career goals. We also shared recommendations for others wishing to develop or revise professional practice programs. Through this work we have come to believe that Educational Technology is a discipline ripe with potential to meet the needs of scholars and practitioners through terminal degree programs differentiated based on career goals and context. We have dialogued with colleagues from several other major universities about professional practice degree programs and we look forward to the opportunity to speak with others in the near future.

References

1. Allen, I. & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States, 2008. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.
2. Ainsworth, S., & Loizou, A.T. (2003). The effects of self explaining when learning with texts or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27, 669-681.
3. Austin, A.E. (2002). Preparing the next generation: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73, 94-122.
4. Barone, C.A. (2003, September-October). The changing landscape and the new academy. EDUCAUSE Review.
5. Bates, A. W., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education: Foundations for success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6. Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3-15.
7. Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: The priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, N.J.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
8. Buysse, V., Sparkman, K., & Wesley, P. (2003). Communities of practice: Connecting what we know with what we do. Council for Exceptional Children, 69(3), 263-77.
9. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2007). Carnegie Program on the Education Doctorate. Accessed October 27, 2009 from this URL.
10. Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 354-380.
11. Costa, A.L., & Kallick, B. (2008). Learning and leading with habits of mind: 16 essential characteristics for success. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
12. Coté, N., Goldman, S., & Saul, E.U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25, 1-53.
13. Council of Graduate Schools (2008). Ph.D. completion rates differ by student demographics. Accessed August 9, 2010 from this URL.
14. Dana, N. F., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2008). The reflective educator's guide to classroom research: Learning to teach and teaching to learn through practitioner inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
15. Dill, D.D., & Morrison, J.L. (1985). Ed.D. and Ph.D. research training in the field of higher education: A survey and a proposal. Review of Higher Education, 8(2), 169–186.
16. Eisenhart, M., & DeHaan, R. (2005). Doctoral preparation of scientifically based education researchers, Educational Researcher, 34(4), 3–13.
17. Evans, R. (2007). Comments on Shulman, Golde, Bueschel, and Garabedian: Existing practice is not the template. Educational Researcher, 36(9), 553–539.
18. Ferdig, R.E., Mishra, P., & Zhao, Y. (2004). Component architectures and web based learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 15(1), 75-90.
19. Gappa, J.M., Austin, A. E., & Trice, A. G. (2007). Rethinking faculty work: Higher education’s strategic imperative. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
20. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2): 95-105. doi:doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
21. Golde, C.M. (2000). Should I stay or should I go? Student descriptions of the doctoral attrition process. The Review of Higher Education, 23(2), 199-227.
22. Graesser, A. C., Olde, B., & Klettke, B. (2002). How does the mind construct and represent stories? In M. C. Green, J. J. Strange, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations (231-263). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23. Graham, C. R. (2005). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. pp. 3-21.
24. Graesser, A., Olde, B., & Klettke, B. (2002). How does the mind construct and represent stories? In M. C. Green, J. J. Strange, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25. Guha, R.V., & Lenat, D.B. (1994). Enabling agents to work together. Communications of the ACM, 37(7), 126-142.
26. Guskey, T.R. (1998, Fall). Evaluation must become an integral part of staff development. Journal of Staff Development, 19(4). Retrieved November 8, 2010, from this URL.
27. Guthrie, J.W. (2009). The case for a modern doctor of education degree (Ed.D.): Multipurpose education doctorates no longer appropriate. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(1), 3-8.
28. Katz, E. L. (1997). Key players in the dissertation process. In Goodchild, L. F., Green, K. L., Katz, E. L. & Kluever, P. C. (Eds.), Rethinking the dissertation process: Tackling personal and institutional obstacles. New Directions for Higher Education, No. 99. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
29. Kumar, S., Cavanaugh, C., Black, E. W., Dawson, K., & Sessums, C. D. (2011, April). Preliminary Impact of a Professional Practice Doctorate on Students Professional Growth. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans.
30. Labaree, D. F., (2003). The Peculiar Problems of Preparing Educational Researchers. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 13-23.
31. Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
32. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
33. McTighe, J., & O‘Connor, K. (2005). Seven practices for effective learning. Educational Leadership, 63, 10-17.
34. Moore, M. (Ed.) (2007). Handbook of distance education, (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35. Moore, M. G., & Anderson, W. G. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of distance education. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
36. Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2005). Cognitive Load and Learning Effects of Having Students Organize Pictures and Words in Multimedia Environments: The Role of Student Interactivity and Feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 35-45.
37. Morris, L.V. (2009). Faculty redefined. Innovative Higher Education, 34(3), 131-132.
38. Neumann, R. (2005). Doctoral differences: Professional doctorates and PhDs compared. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(2), 173-188.
39. Olson & Clark (2009). A Signature Pedagogy in Doctoral Education: The Leader-Scholar Community. Educational Reseacher, 38(3), 216-221.
40. Osguthorpe, R. T., & Wong, M. J. (1993). The Ph.D. versus the Ed.D.: Time for a decision. Innovative Higher Education, 18(1), 47-63.
41. Packard, W. (2003). Student training promotes mentoring awareness and action. Career Development Quarterly, 51(4), 335-345.
42. Pallof, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
43. Perry, J.A., & Imig, D.G. (2008). A stewardship of practice in education. Change: The Magazine of High Learning, 40(6), 42-49.
44. Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology. In Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (Eds.). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall College Division.
45. Roberts, C. M. (2004). The dissertation journey: A practical and comprehensive guide to planning, writing, and defending your dissertation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
46. Saettler, P. (1990). The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
47. Shulman, L. (2007). Response to Comments: Practical wisdom in the service of professional practice. Educational Researcher 36, 560-563.
48. Shulman, L.(2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3) 52-64.
49. Shulman, L., Golde, C.M., Bueschel, A.C., & Garabedian, K.J. (2006). Reclaiming education’s doctorates: A critique and a proposal. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 25-32.
50. Thurgood, L., Golladay, M.J., & Hill. (2006). U.S. doctorates in the 20th century. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, NSF 06-319, Arlington, VA.

Kara Dawson is an Associate Professor, Educational Technology at the University of Florida. E-mail: dawson@coe.ufl.edu

Cathy Cavanaugh is an Associate Professor, Educational Technology at the University of Florida. E-mail: cathycavanaugh@coe.ufl.edu

Christopher Sessums is a Post-doctoral associate at the University of Florida. E-mail: chrissessums@gmail.com

Erik. W. Black is an Assistant Professor, University of Florida. E-mail: ewblack@gmail.com

Swapna Kumar is a Clinical Assistant Professor, University of Florida. E-mail: swapnakumar@coe.ufl.edu