Ed.d
From WikEd
Post here your reactions to the Richardson essay on the education doctorate.
I am especially interested in your thoughts about the implications of her essay for Ed.D. programs and especailly for the Ed.D. program in teaching and learning that you are the trailblazers of. Sign your posting and separate it from those of others by putting a line with five dashes after your posting. jal
I am fascinated by the assumptions that the author seems to hold about why people pursue doctorates in education and where the "stewards of the field" are located. What is the eventual work of one who holds a doctorate in education? Would a broader conception of the work change the view of the degree program? How do the skills and practices of the doctorate support those who work outside the university? The chart provided by Ball and Cohen includes valuable processes that "stewards" need, regardless of their workplace. Kim
It is interesting that she explores two different definitions of education, thus making education become a discipline. In most cases I have not heard education defined this way. The author give three views as this, which seem contrived. The three are that "it is not", that is is "sort-of", and that "it is".
In the discussion about the three components of the education doctorate, this seems to broaden the scope of what a program should do or cover. In the discussion about methods and maintaing a balanced understanding of various methods, or more specifically, developing strong knowledge of using a particular method suited to the research being conducted, with an appreciation and a working knowledge of other methods seems to be sound (pg 8). But it seems like the emphasis may move towards adopting the randomized method as the primary because of tensions with federal funding.
The practical knowledge section (pg. 10) seems attractive. It discusses how practical knowledge comes from experience and that this experience comers from truly teaching. While I like this approach because ti begins to raise ideas about the importance of teacher researchers in this "field of study", I wonder if it will be translated into the idea that you have to have taught K-12 classes to understand and research K-12 classes.
The habits of mind seems to be a term back on the rise in education. Jim commented how this was an old idea, but it is the title of a book being used in current education courses about teaching and student learning.
The table of Crucial Elements has a lot to consider. It "feels" like the same ideas we all believe about education in general, especially the sections about education being "socially situated" and the balanced approach to methods used. And the ability to communicate with different audience seems important as education has such a diverse set of stakeholders.
Chris
A few comments...
I liked the tension that was described between the idea of education as a field of study and as an enterprise-- Though I'm not particularly fond of the term "enterprise", I do think that this tension-- between the theoretical and the practical, is an essential part of education at many different levels, including in the classroom and at the level of doctoral study.
I like the concept of being "stewards" of education-- Connected to both the field of study and the enterprise. However, the list that Richardson provides (p.3) describing what may be expected of education stewards struck me as wonderful in theory but impractical on an individual level. There may be some who are excellent at reseach but unable to communicate their findings to practitioners... and vice versa. I would argue that rather than expecting everyone to be skilled on all of these levels, it would be more valuable to work on building lines of communication within the field so that we can draw upon the strengths and support the needs of our colleagues. This would require, however, that all aspects (research, communication, teaching, etc.) be valued on an equal level.
I liked the three "forms of knowing" that Richardson enumerates as appropriate to doctoral programs-- Formal knowledge, practical knowledge, and beliefs and misconceptions. Although I realize the balance for our EdD program may be different than for a PhD program, I think that this organizational structure provides an excellent frame for reflecting on and evaluating TEP's EdD program and our work within the program.
My thoughts in these areas... Formal knowledge: I feel like I am learning a lot about my own research interests and about research methods... However, I worry about all that I do not know, particularly about foundational aspects of the field such as the history of education, philosophy of education, etc. I know something about these areas from undergraduate and masters work, but certainly don't feel as well versed as I think I should be... I feel as though I would benefit from an advanced survey style course on such foundational elements of teaching and learning. Perhaps it was assumed that I would have knowledge about these topics and I just happen to be lacking... Perhaps there simply isn't the time in an EdD program, or perhaps it is not deemed as important since the emphasis is now on being specialists rather than generalists.
Practical knowledge: I appreciate the opportunities that we've been afforded to be introduced into the practical aspects of the field-- Attending AERA, submitting proposals to present at AERA, being asked to TA classes (though the timing has never quite worked out), etc. So far, these opportunities have mostly been informal (as opposed to being a specific course or internship) and this seems appropriate. I hope that during the next couple of years such opportunities will continue and be expanded.
Beliefs and misconceptions: I would say that, as Richardson warns, I arrived with beliefs and misconceptions about the nature of doctoral work that did not immediately mesh with the beliefs and expectations of the program. ALthough I feel like my fit within UCSD's program is much more comfortable now, I am still trying to gain an understanding of what the expectations and beliefs of the field of education are at this level, the varied opportunities that might be available, and where I might best fit.
Heather
This article addresses the importance of doctoral programs in education as ideal places where to conduct research across many disciplines and areas of study, while generating new knowledge that not only enriches academia, but also serves the practical world of a classroom/school, and the political world of policy. In fact, Richardson calls students in Ph.D. programs “stewards�? whose roles are to contribute to the academic and practical knowledge base, and to contribute to the improvement of education in general, all while maintaining a solid understanding of current research, policy and practice. Thus, as doctoral students we are perhaps being trained as future emissaries of education, armed with intellectual capital, and ready to help change and improve the world of education. These are noble and important roles that we are being entrusted to play as doctoral students and future scholars. Indeed as educators, most of us are driven to this field by idealism and a belief in the possibility of social change. Although this article seems to honor the work of doctoral students, it did raise some questions. Given Richardson’s strong advocacy for a connection between the “study of the field�? and the “enterprise�? or “activity,�? why does it seem then that there is a continuous struggle to build bridges between university research and the “enterprise�?? Why are there different perceptions of scientific research and educational research, and why is there a push for one over the other? How do doctoral programs, schools of education, and related academic fields prepare future scholars and practitioners to address research that has a political and policy purpose? What is the purpose of a doctoral program, i.e., what is the doctoral program preparing its students to do in the future? And, although this article does emphasize teaching as an important element of a doctoral program, it is not clear if this teaching is limited to the university level, or to teaching in the field (K-12, community college, etc.) I wonder then, if a top goal of a doctoral program, in Richardson’s view, is solely to prepare future university academics who will continue doing research on the “enterprise,�? while disseminating knowledge via teaching in higher education, networking and publishing.
The “Crucial Elements of Scholarly Inquiry and Student Learning�? table was an interesting reading. It seems as if I had read different versions of the content of this table throughout our 260 series as we were being exposed to articles and discussions on differing educational research schools of thought. Though this is only the second year of our Ed.D. program, we could actually place this table next to our program’s content and build a comparison check table. In my short experience in this program, I believe that if we were to do this, we would find that our Ed.D. program satisfies all these elements. Perhaps, we are not as exposed as other traditional programs to as many higher education teaching opportunities, or professional conference presentations. Nonetheless, I especially appreciate one of the habits of mind (under number 3): “Willingness to take intellectual risks,�? which I find true of our program. We are encouraged to pursue our passion, and to feed our curiosity without being influenced by a particular research agenda from the program’s faculty. Nonetheless, I do not see this table as the “bible�? of all doctoral programs. I see the diversity in my cohort, and I am honored to be exposed to different research interests, intellectual curiosities, and hopes for future work after the completion of this program.
Luz
At first I was bothered by the use of the term “stewardship�?. It seemed to imply that doctoral programs should be about passing the torch, transmitting some existing body of knowledge to a new generation. Richardson (who didn’t invent the use of the term in this context in any event) is careful to say in many places that this new generation should conserve “the best while promoting change and improvement�?, and overall I think the article provides a useful framework for conversation as TEP defines the two new doctoral programs and indeed redefines itself. However, there are two major lingering questions for me behind Richardson’s piece: who is the "doctoral student" in question? Who are the stakeholders, where do their interests intersect and where do they diverge, and what difference might it make if we look more carefully at the relationships between policy, research and practice? Kim raises some excellent questions in this regard. The assumption behind the Richardson article seemed to me to be that although the purpose of doctoral study wasn’t (only) to preserve & transmit disciplinary knowledge (in this case, defining education as a discipline), the unit of analysis seems to be the individual whose end goal is a traditional university-based faculty position (not just in a “specialty area�? like teacher education, I might add). Moreover, the relationship between policy and practice seems to be represented as a technical-rational one where enlightened faculty presumably learn to leverage educational reform through improved communication skills. In other words, if all those poor folks (ie parents) and policy wonks give up their misguided beliefs and listen to the voice of (academic) reason all will be well out there for kids. Hmmm. I think we have the opportunity here to go beyond that depiction of policy/practice interactions. I’ll briefly try to elaborate what I am getting at around those two questions here.
It takes a…..(village? Collective? Research group? Or ???) The framework for what new PhD/EdD’s should know and be able to do developed by Ball & Cohen spells out information that seems quite useful in program design and self-regulation of candidate learning (but oh no, do I see another portfolio on the horizon??? Check out p. 9, second bullet ;-) Like other documents that seek to put forth a set of standards or descriptions of competencies, it is broad and general. Heather’s observation that the knowledge, skills and dispositions described really are/should be distributed among a group got me to thinking about not only what future contexts is the EdD in teaching & learning preparing students to enter or continue within (such as the classroom), but about possible learning contexts during the program. As doctoral students collaborate within the cohort, possibly across departments on campus or across campuses what happens to their sense of what it means to engage in research? Even though the collaborative interdisciplinary research cohort proposal submitted this summer wasn’t funded, ad hoc opportunities may arise that help shift the paradigm of what it means to be an individual “steward�?. A regional program such as UCSD’s can not only build on existing networks within the community but also begin to establish ongoing communities of inquiry.
Theory, practice & policy Richardson’s article made passing reference to families and communities (the generic “public�? and a brief mention of “student groupings�? in the special interests section). What are the best opportunities for prospective educational leaders/researchers (I guess I mean both doctoral strands here) to understand policy and reform in more nuanced ways, to build alliances and relationships that will not only inform the outside world about educational research/practice but also by informed by the experiences, perspectives and knowledge of practitioners, parents, local school administrators, etc.? Richardson seems to paint a fairly traditional, uni-directional picture: it’s mostly about newly-minted PhD/EdD’s educating others, with less emphasis what candidates might learn from stakeholders outside the academy aside from the source of their misconceptions. I’m not sure too many models of this kind of thing exist at the doctoral level, and those that do build the kind of new bridges outside the research community that Luz talks about, such as connections with university outreach (e.g., CREATE or Center X) may be fragile due to the politics of funding. How can opportunities to learn about and possibly conduct policy-oriented research help institutionalize important relationships between theory, policy and practice?
A few more thoughts on TEP past and future
As UCSD’s teacher education program develops through offering doctoral programs, the history & depth of its social science background and connection to the local community is important to remember. The initial EdD course on educational reform, linked to the 260A research methods seminar, is a critical induction. Ultimately, the searches for junior faculty are crucial in shaping not only the range of methodologies represented but also the program's many connections to the region it serves (not that any one is nearing retirement or anything…). Richardson is primarily writing I imagine about doctoral programs that bring students in from across the country and send them out again to the four winds: we have a much different opportunity here in a regional, cohort-based program to make an impact. What types of interaction (if any) will be planned between the students and faculty in the two EdD strands, and what potential benefits or drawbacks might occur from bringing these groups strategically together? What vision(s) of possible outcomes and contexts guide the design of each EdD strand? Of course shaping that is ultimately up to all of us, and Richardson’s article does provide key entry points for conversation and analysis.
(sorry I got carried away - I wrote this while flying in a plane!)
Cheryl
As is often the case for me when I read about education, relevant tensions embedded in the issues emerged. It turned into a theme of sorts in my response.
Richardson states that in order to be stewards of the discipline we’ll require more understanding of the system than our own specialized field of study will provide. It’s patently obvious yet it seems less present in our course of study than it should be. Not sure where or when more of it could be fit in but I have felt a bit like I’m groping around for it on my own. I join Heather in her worries about all that she doesn’t know, especially foundational stuff. Maybe this is just one of the differences between an Ed.D. and a Ph.D. but a relevant course in the second year would certainly make sense. There is an obvious tension between zeroing in on a research interest and being impacted by a journey through some of the bigger broader views. They both take time. It seems important to think about the sequencing of these deeply linked endeavors.
The comments about beliefs and misconceptions certainly struck a chord - they are woefully underexamined in education. The tensions are freakishly complex, especially given that persons from every walk of life have a legitimate sense of expertise about education. Every field has its battles but is ANY field more overpopulated by stakeholders? I think it goes far beyond the researcher-teacher divide. It’s tempting to limit our questioning to the massive array of beliefs among a given sub-group we may “belong�? to (e.g. teachers) but parents, politicians, social workers, policy-makers, activists, and (let’s not forget) kids (to mention a few) all have a viable role in our field. What do we do with their beliefs? It’s another reason why I’d like to have a better understanding of the history of schooling. It think that this socio-cultural monstrosity we all function in needs to be examined with a truly broad view in order to genuinely disentangle and refine our own beliefs, and I echo Cheryl’s comments in this regard.
One of the more outstanding tensions in the piece for me was in the table (in #2) - “humility to respect prior work�? and “courage to question accumulated wisdom�?. Man is that ever a line to toe carefully! So important yet so treacherous too. At times, I resent the vague sense of obligation to “pick a side�? when what I really seem to encounter underfoot is a bridge. Yet I also accept the inherently oppositional and deliciously diverse nature of the field of education. We’ve definitely grappled with some of the more significant controversies, and I have noted some fundamental internal “shifts�?, but I never feel like I have the time to sufficiently digest and reflect. These tensions are important and should be given sufficient time and space.
Pam
