Amanda M Maddocks Concordia University Chicago

1. A comparison of partnership models—maintaining quality as professional doctorate candidates are prepared for independent research Amanda M Maddocks Concordia University Chicago

2. Introduction • Concordia University • Doctor of Education Program • Partnerships • Dissertation Supervision

3. Study • Preparedness for independent research • Comparison of two partnership models • Candidate, faculty and partner experiences

4. Partnership Model A • State school administrator’s organization • Role of the partner • F2F and online engagement • 66 students actively enrolled in coursework

5. Partnership Model B • Regional teacher and school administrator professional development organization • Role of the partner • Fully online • 169 students actively enrolled in coursework

6. Study Design • Interviews and focus groups (model B) • Sampled (n=103) over two years • Surveys (both models A and B) • 24 supervisors (86%) • 65 students (42%) • 36 of 65 were from model B • Faculty interviews (both models) • In process

7. Program Feedback • Six themes (interviews/focus groups – B) • Faculty/instruction (24%+; 24%-) • Collegial Circles (23%+; 17%-) • Program format (20%+) • Course mechanics (13%+; 30%-) • Communication (7%+; 11%-) • Services (8%-)

8. Survey Results • 96.9% of students feel they have the technical skills needed to complete their research • Only 45.8% of supervisors believe students have the skills needed • Supervisors’ responses varied by department (χ2(9, N = 24) = 20.99, p = .013)

9. Candidates have the skills needed to complete a dissertation as reported by supervisor teaching area

10. Of Note…Supervisor Experience Level

11. Supervisor Support • Overall level of support provided by the supervisor is acceptable.

12. University Support • Overall level of support provided by CUC is acceptable.

13. Next Steps • Disconnect between self-perceived ability and abilities as assessed by supervisors • Writing ability • Pedagogy of supervision (Pearson & Brew, 2002) • Partnership models (Maxwell, 2003; Pearson & Brew, 2002)

14. Selected References Berliner, D. C. (2006). Toward a future as rich as our past. In C. M. Golde & G. E. Walker (Eds.), Envisioning the future of doctoral education (pp. 268–289). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brennan, M. (1995). Education doctorates: Reconstructing professional partnerships around research? Australian Universities’ Review, 2, 20–22. Brew, A., & Peseta, T. (2004). Changing postgraduate supervision practice: A programme to encourage learning through reflection and feedback. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(1), 5–22. Caboni, T. C., & Proper, E. (2009). Re-envisioning the professional doctorate for educational leadership and higher education leadership: Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College EdD Program. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 61–68. Lee, A., Green, B., & Brennan, M. (2000). Organisational knowledge, professional practice and the professional doctorate at work. In J. Garrick & C. Rhodes (Eds.), Research and knowledge at work. London: Routledge. Maxwell, T. (2003). From first to second generation professional doctorate. Studies in Higher Education, 28, 279–291. Pearson, M., & Brew, A. (2002). Research training and supervision development. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 135–150. Perry, J. A., & Imig, D. G. (2008, November–December). A stewardship of practice in education. Change, pp. 42–48. Scott, D., Brown, A., Lunt, I., & Thorne, L. (2009). Specialised knowledge in UK professions. In D. Boud & A. Lee (Eds.), Changing practices of doctoral education (pp. 143–156). London: Routledge. U.S. Council of Graduate Schools. (2007). Report of the CGS Task Force on the Professional Doctorate. Washington, DC: Author.