Archbald

Evolution of a Problem-based, Improvement-focused EdD

Capstone: Theory and Practice

Doug Archbald, Ph.D.School of Ed, University of Delaware

CPED June Convening2014

• Research versus problem solving for the education leadership doctoral thesis: Implications for form and function. Educational Administration Quarterly, 2008.

• “Breaking the mold” in the dissertation: Implementing a problem-based, decision-oriented thesis project. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 2010.

• The GAPPSI Method: Problem-solving, Planning, and Communicating - Concepts and Strategies for Leadership in Education. NCPEA Press, 2013. http://www.ncpeapublications.org/ncpea-press.html

(GAPPSI = Gap Analysis for Problem Solving, Planning, and School Improvement)

This talk draws from below … (and 20+ years of teaching, advising, and service in EdD program)

http://www.ncpeapublications.org/ncpea-press.html

http://www.ncpeapublications.org/ncpea-press.html

My main message:

If the culminating EdD project is problem solving for organizational improvement, then this argues for a portfolio-like final product.

Timeline: Key Events & TransitionsMid-80s Early

90s1990-2000

2005-2006 2009-2010 2013

UD-SOE EdD Program established and within a few years “EPP” invented.

Program is traditional“Ed Admin”

A PhD alsooffered

Faculty turnover; more researchoriented faculty added

Quality and rigor of EPP thesis improves.

EPP is mainly thought of as “a study with recommend-ations.”

• New EdD Coordinator• Big EdD program divides into two smaller concentrations• Several new faculty members become affiliated with EdD program• “Buy-in” starts to develop for changing the EPP

One of the two concentrations starts shifting toward a “portfolio-like” model (the K-12 school /district leadership concentration).

ELPadopted as policy

CAPSTONE “Education LeadershipPortfolio” (ELP)

CAPSTONE“Executive Position Paper” (EPP) as EdD thesis

The “EPP”(Executive

Position Papers)

“Executive Position Papers” (EPP): The Vision

• EdD Candidate (a practitioner) poses an issue requiring a decision

• Use literature and available data to become informed and decide

• Three Chapters:Paper 1: LiteraturePaper 2: Local studyPaper 3: Recommendations

• The EPP vision was sensible, but vague• In practice, 120-150 paper comes

out looking like a three chapter dissertation• Some examples follow

School District Decision-making: A Case Study

Coming to Voice: Discourses, Identities and Achievement Among Women of Color in the Community College




A Comparative Study of Itinerant Teachers’ Perceptions of Pull-out and Collaborative Service Delivery Models for Students With Hearing Loss

Timeline: Key Events & Transitions

Mid-80s Early 90s

1990-2000

2005-2006 2009-2010 2013

UD-SOE EdD Program established and within a few years “EPP” invented.

Program is traditional“Ed Admin”

Faculty turnover; more researchoriented faculty added




One of the two concentrations starts shifting toward a “portfolio-like” model (the K-12 school /district leadership concentration).

ELPadopted



Timeline: Key Events & TransitionsEarly 90s

2003-2004 2005-2006 2009-2010

2013

Two competing perspectives and corresponding questions:

1) EPPs need to be better in exposition, analysis, methods. How to improve their empirical and scholarly quality?

2) Why are practitioners required to write up a 130 page study that won’t get published or affect their work?


One of the two concentrations starts shifting toward a “portfolio-like” model (the K-12 school /district leadership concentration)




An “actual”* versus a “research” problem• Example issue: high drop out rate• Research problem: gap in knowledge –causal theory – explaining dropping out• Example study: “Does extra-curricular participation affect

attendance and persistence?”

Review litDevelop research designCollect and analyze dataReport findings & draw conclusion

*"organizational improvement problem" is a useful term in this context

Three Key Differences Between “Research” problem and “Actual” problem (aka “OIP”*)

(1) Actual/OIP: Problem is a GAP between current and desired state in organization(2) Actual/OIP: Multiple questions and tasks(3) Actual/OIP: Persuasion, not proof


An “actual "problem versus a “research” problem

• Issue: high drop out rate• Actual problem … the GAP between

current state and desired (goal) state in an organization.

• Problem statement? My school’s drop out rate is too high (TLO/TMO statement) … What do I (we) do?

Problem solving (OIP) goal versus research goal

• “Actual” problem solving goal: Reduce the gap between organization’s current state and desired (goal) state (e.g., reduce drop out rate)

• Research problem goal: Reduce gap in understanding of causes of dropping out (knowledge gap)

Difference #2 Between “Research” problem and “Actual” problem (“OIP”*)

(1) Actual/OIP: Problem is a GAP between current and desired state in organization

(2) Actual problem (OIP): Multiple questions and tasks(3) Actual/OIP: Persuasion, not proof


OIPs (like drop out problem) have multiple causes; raise many questions

Any one of these arrows is potentially subject to empirical inquiry

Problem solving requires knowing about current conditions and practices in the organization

Problem solving is aided by reading relevant literature and talking with others

Problem solving requires breaking down “bottom line” problem into sub-problems:- Weak parental

support?- Gaps in student

mentoring?- Inadequate progress

monitoring of at-risk students?

Ill-structured problems, multiple questions

SOURCE: Archbald, D. (2013). GAPPSI book, NCPEA Press (link above).

Difference #3 Between “Research” problem and “Actual” problem (“OIP”*)

(1) Actual/OIP: Problem is a GAP between current and desired state in organization(2) Actual/OIP: Multiple questions and tasks

(3) Actual/OIP: Informed judgment, not proof guides decisions


Informed judgment: Problem solving and organizational improvement require decisions and actions under conditions of uncertainty (also time pressures) Evidence is necessary;

but information is never complete. There are no “P values” for decision outcomes.

Parents

Community

Members

Organizational Colleagues/Sta

ff

Policy-makers

Leadership for problem solving and organizational improvement must influence multiple organizational audiences and stakeholders

Board or Trustees

• Leadership (OIP) communications seek to persuade organizational audiences to:

understand the current stateunderstand the goal statebelieve the goal state is desirable believe there is a gap between the current state and

the goal statebelieve the goal state is possible to achievebelieve costs required to achieve the goal state are

justified (i.e., worth the effort)

Four Criteria of Acceptability

• Developmental efficacy: Dissertation prepares for a career in research; EdD capstone must prepare for the top level demands of practice: leadership qualities and professional expertise.

• Community benefit: Dissertation serves scholarly community and society with new knowledge; EdD capstone serves candidate’s organization and community.

• Intellectual stewardship: Dissertation must uphold values of scholarship and scholarly knowledge; EdD capstone must uphold values of critical thinking, disciplined inquiry, reflective practice.

• Distinctive form: Dissertation has widely recognized form and content; EdD capstone must aim for its own unique “signature” format.

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

Timeline: Key Events & Transitions

1990-2000

2005-2006 2009-2010 2013




One of the two concentrations starts shifting toward a “portfolio-like” model (the K-12 school/district leadership concentration).




Web-based Storing and

Accessing ELP in Shared

Google Drive

Issues and Challenges• Evaluation challenges

Empirical analysisProductsReflection

• Thesis mentoring challenges• Confidentiality