CPED Meeting At aera Denver, Co

1. CPED MeetingAt aera Denver, Co May 2, 2010 10:00am-2:00pm David Imig& Jill Perry

2. Agenda

3. Understanding fipse& how cped fits • Jackie Edmondson (PSU) & David Imig have discussed CPED with Ralph Hines, Director FIPSE • 36 grants at $750K each • Looking for innovation how do our programs show student improvement? What models and outcomes can we demonstrate? • Interested in evaluation & dissemination as part of study • May cover protocol development • Deadline mid-late June; Awards in September

4. What is the Problem? • It is a Problem of National Significance • It is an Unsolved Problem • It is a Widely Felt Problem • It is an Emerging Problem • It is a Practical Problem • It is a Problem Shared by Many Colleges & Universities • It is a Problem Demanding Bold Thinking

5. The CPED Initiative • Common Commitment to Distinguishing and Differentiating Between the Doctorate in Education (154 Colleges & Universities) • Research Scholars vs. Scholarly Practitioners • Practical and Narrative Knowledge vs. Analytic Knowledge • Guided by a Set of Shared Principles • Work Based on a Shared Language (Shulman) • Capstones and Decathlons and Signature Pedagogies

6. Making the EdD The Degree of Choice • Directed at Real Problems and Real Solutions • Emphasis is on Preparing Transformational Leaders to Change Schools and Colleges & Other Learning Organizations • Enabling Doctoral Programs to Meet the Needs of Practitioners (Part Time Students with Full Time Responsibilities) • Doing So in a Rigorous, Responsible, Practical, Transparent, and Ethical Manner

7. What We Want to Know • Changes in Knowledge, Skills, Behaviors and/or Attitudes • Changes in Organizational Structures to Promote Such Learning and Behavioral Change • Changes in the Cost of Preparing Leaders • Ways of Using Quasi-Experimental Designs to Document Such Changes • Readiness of CPED to Use Multiple Data Gathering Procedures Across Institutions

8. What We Have to Offer • An Established Network of +25 Colleges and Universities • 3 Years of Shared Effort in Building Pilots or Proofing Sites (Some Cross Institutional Data & Information) • A Common Set of Principles • An Agreed Upon Set of Outcomes • A Shared Language • Institutional Resources and Institutional “Change Agents”

9. The Challenges

10. Different Purposes: Different Clients

11. Organizational & Governance Concerns • Finding a Home • Identifying a Project Evaluator • Staffing the Project • Building a Budget • Creating a Shared Governance Design • Building a Cross Institutional Commitment to Data Gathering and Data Sharing • Getting Everything Completed SOON!

12. Data – What Do We Want? • Demographic Data on Applicants & Admitted Students, Graduates & Successful Practitioners • Cohort Data on Knowledge & Skills, Beliefs & Attitudes - Across Program Data • Information on Course Designs, Labs of Practice, Internships, Apprenticeships • Candidate Course Grades, Portfolios, Other Artifacts • Candidate Success on Comps, Proposals & Capstones (Shared Rubrics) • Candidate Success in Appointments, Promotions, Supervisor Evaluations, etc. • Candidate Success on Certifying Examinations

13. WHERE WE HAVE ARRIVED Phase I of CPED: • Why- Belief Statements = Scholarly Practitioner • How- Design Decisions (signature pedagogies, labs, capstones) • What- 6 principles of the professional practice doctorate

14. WHY: Scholarly Practitioners From institutional documents From October Convening We, the members of CPED, believe “The professional doctorate in education prepares educators for the application of appropriate and specific practices, the generation of new knowledge, and for the stewardship of the profession.” • Need for critical consumers of research • Need for action research, applied research skills • Need for research literary, systematic inquiry, effective data analysis for data-driving decision making • Need for combining inquiry and content • Need to develop students’ knowledge, competencies, and skills applicable to disciplined inquiry • Need to focus on research in action • Need for more deliberate and developmental scaffolding for students as they plan for and actually conduct research on problems of practice

15. How: our accomplishments Key program structures: cohorts, three year completion, innovative assessments, attention to adult learners, engagement of workplace, Key features: signature pedagogies, labs, capstones that emphasize inquiry and define cohesive leadership preparation that engages learner and scholar in solving problems of practice Key outcomes: scholarly decisions and solutions to high leverage problems, scholarly products aimed at research and practice, rethinking of doctoral preparation in SOEs

16. What: 6 principles • Is framed around questions of equity, ethics, and social justice to bring about solutions to complex problems of practice. • Prepares leaders who can construct and apply knowledge to make a positive difference in the lives of individuals, families, organizations, and communities. • Provides opportunities for candidates to develop and demonstrate collaboration and communication skills to work with diverse communities and to build partnerships. • Provides field-based opportunities to analyze problems of practice and use multiple frames to develop meaningful solutions. • Is grounded in and develops a professional knowledge base that integrates both practical and research knowledge, that links theory with systemic and systematic inquiry. • Emphasizes the generation, transformation, and use of professional knowledge and practice.

17. Why—Justify our claim that Scholarly Practitioner is important? In inter-institutional groups: Discuss & record results

18. How are we preparing Scholarly Practitioners? In inter-institutional groups: Describe your institutional efforts around one of the following CPED design concepts— Signature pedagogies Laboratories of Practice Capstones

19. MOVING FORWARD TO PHASE II: • WE HAVE LOTS TO DEMONSTRATE • NEED EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ACROSS INSTITUTIONS

20. What—questions to launch Phase II &attract resources------In inter-Institutional groups, CONSIDER THE RESEARCH questions &ANSWER:a. What do we think of these as research questions?B. how can we word-smith them? C. what are some subquestions?D. What are our hypotheses around these? • How has CPED changed Higher Ed/programs? • How have CPED grads changed their settings? • How does program change impact schools?  • How have grads transformed their notions of leadership? • How are we faithful in our programs to principles?

21. Next steps Timeline AERA: Evaluate RQs Add sub-questions Ideas on how we might collect data (will warrant tool development) May-June: Send out AERA results to all teams Develop two-page description for potential protocol development Write narratives for grant Assemble proposal writing team At UCF June Convening: Question development teams Protocol development teams Discuss division of consortium for research-- inter-institutional June-September Establish institution commitments Work as if we have grant—develop design, products due, convenings Questions to consider: •Size, scope, how to group? •Products, outcomes, evidence •Types of Evaluation •How disseminate our products/results? •Inclusion of new members as critical friends?

22. Thanks for participating Share ideas with your home team members We’ll see ya’ll at the University of Central Florida June 9-11th