Evaluation of a Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership

Module by: Marjorie C. Ringler, William Rouse

Summary: This article describes an evaluation of an Ed.D. Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership conducted at a university in North Carolina. The purpose was to determine graduates’ perceptions of the impact of the degree attainment on their professional career. Results will also assist with efforts for improving the quality of the program of study. Data analyzed included professional accomplishments, scholarly activities, leadership activities that contribute to the education profession and society. Findings indicated that follow up and information provided by graduates of a program provided a unique source of data that can describe the significance and effectiveness of the program to students and to professional communities. Approximately 80% of graduates indicated that the dissertation process was the most effective aspect of their program of study. Additionally, all graduates reported that the degree program resulted in increased income and job promotions. Only 16% of graduates indicated participation in scholarly work.

This module has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and sanctioned by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a scholarly contribution to the knowledge base in educational administration.

The era of accountability brought by No Child Left Behind accompanied with an ever-changing global economy has increased the need to ensure school leaders possess the skills and knowledge in order to provide exemplary leadership to the students, teachers, and community for which they serve. More and more educational leaders are faced with complex issues that require a vast array of leadership skills in order to provide sound educational experiences to those they serve. Institutions of higher education (IHE) offer degree programs to prepare individuals to assume educational leadership roles and serve as training ground for leaders of public schools. The doctorate degree in educational leadership (Ed.D.) may be viewed as the credentialing measure which may potentially have the greatest impact on individuals who hold the degree as well as those for which those individuals serve. Therefore, IHEs must ensure their respective doctoral programs in educational leadership are being instructionally delivered at a level that meets the ever-changing educational landscape so that graduates of those programs are equipped with the skills that promote and encourage an educated citizenry. In this era of measurable outcomes, evaluation of a doctoral program of study in educational leadership should include data collected from graduates’ professional accomplishments, scholarly activities, leadership activities that contribute to the Public School Administration profession and society in general. Therefore the purposes of this study were to determine graduates’ perceptions of an Ed.D. program and the impact an attained Ed.D. degree has had on personal benefits and professional leadership. For the purposes of this study the researchers investigated response indicators that reflected graduates program evaluation of (a) advising; (b) coursework; (c) internship; and (d) dissertation. To determine personal benefits, for the purposes of this study, researchers investigated response indicators that indicated graduates’ perceptions of (a) employability; (b) job promotion; and (c) income increase. To determine professional leadership, for the purposes of this study, researchers investigated graduates’ perceptions of (a) involvement in professional organizations; (b) involvement in leadership mentoring; (c) involvement in scholarly activity, and (d) involvement in legislative and policy development activities. All of these indicators contribute to overall graduate perceptions of Ed.D. program at East Carolina University and the impact that the degree attainment has had on graduates personal lives and professional communities they work in.

Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) vs. Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)

The significance of the Ed.D. has been a subject of study and critical review in the past century since the development of the first Ed.D. by Harvard University in the early 1920’s. This initial Ed.D. was conceptualized for the purpose of developing scholarly practitioners that could enhance the field of education through applied research (Townsend, 2002). The Ed.D. program was developed similar to the Ph.D. in its significance yet different in its mission. Since the inception of the Ed.D., critics have debated its value and place in the scholarly field. After reviewing various points of view, the apparent consensus for the purpose of the Ed.D. degree is to prepare individual as practitioners for their professional field of work while the Ph.D. degree is to prepare scholars in their field of study (Dill & Morrison, 1985; Shulman, Golde, Bueschel, & Garabedina, 2006)

One of the major arguments regarding the differentiation of both degrees is the belief that both programs of study are similar varying only in the number of research courses required. In two studies conducted by Norton and Levan (1987), examinations of Ph.D. and Ed.D. programs of study disclosed that coursework completed under these two degree programs were virtually identical. This finding questions the traditionally held notion that the Ph.D. degree demands a significantly greater research concentration than the Ed.D. Furthermore, research studies comparing the two degrees revealed that the dissertation requirements were virtually similar as well (Courtenay, 1988).

Significance of the Ed.D. in Educational Leadership

A renewed interest in the Ed.D. in educational leadership was sparked as a result of a study of approximately 300 higher education institutions that offer graduate degrees in Educational Leadership. In this study conducted by Arthur Levine (2005), the issue of licensing seemed to be creating a demand for graduate degrees; thus, deemphasizing the purpose of the Ed.D. The study showed that typically a masters degree in educational leadership was the credential for the position of principal and the Ed.D. in educational leadership was the degree of choice for the position of superintendent. The study indicated that the Ed.D. in educational leadership was typically oriented toward practitioners and students in these programs were preparing for positions in school administration and/or for students who already hold administrative positions and wanted to advance in the profession by acquiring a doctoral degree. Additionally, this study indicated that not much change in the program of study in educational leadership had occurred despite the call for program restructuring in the late 1980’s. In 1988, the National Commission Report: Leaders for America’s Schools and then again in 2003, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation in Better Leaders for America’s Schools: A Manifesto laid much of the blame for the leadership crisis on useless education school courses and misguided state licensure requirements that were seen as dissuading promising candidates from entering the profession. Despite the need for change the focus of the Ed.D. degree as a licensing only necessity, these studies and commission found that the purpose of the Ed.D. remained the same: to prepare scholarly practitioners in their field of work.

Ed.D. at East Carolina University

East Carolina University, located in rural eastern North Carolina, is the largest producer of school administrators in the area. To continue to meet the needs of the region, an Ed.D. program at East Carolina University was established in 1990 with a mission to develop scholarly practitioners in the field of educational leadership. The program mission emphasized (ECU, 1990 p 12)

“high standards for personal and professional achievement through its assessment process, its curriculum, and its instructional approaches. It will prepare students for full professional lives through its emphasis upon the development of career leadership skills. It will focus on the utilization, development, and dissemination of research. Through its internship and research programs, it will provide services to the community”.

The need for an Ed.D. program in the eastern North Carolina region specifically east of Raleigh, NC was supported by a needs assessment conducted in 1987 (ECU, 1990). Approximately 225 principals, supervisors, and district level administrators responded from local public schools indicating that there was a strong need for an Ed.D. program in the region. The reasons shared by the majority of the respondents indicated that the attainment of this degree would provide opportunities for improving administrative skills; earning higher salaries; and attaining personal and professional goals of obtaining a doctorate (ECU, 1990). Respondents also indicated a desire to include in the Ed.D. in depth study and practical examples that focused on North Carolina practices and regulations especially as it pertains to rural education (ECU, 1990).

Additionally, the survey that resulted in offering an Ed.D. program in Educational Leadership at ECU indicated that the preferred delivery method of an Ed.D. program would be courses offered during evenings and Saturdays. Survey data indicated the need to develop programs that met the needs of non-traditional doctoral students that intended to continue working during their doctoral studies. In general, studies conducted to develop a profile of typical educational leadership doctoral programs found that the delivery structure for doctoral coursework in educational leadership prevalent was in the form of evening classes and summer classes. This delivery structure is unique to education since doctoral student are primarily full-time practicing educators. (Hackmann, & Price, 1995; Levine, 2005).

Significance of Attaining an Ed.D.

IHE faculty must be concerned not only with program quality but also with how well educational programs prepare graduates for professional life (Atwell 1996; Brooks, 1996). Many professional fields have established indicators of degree outcomes for graduates upon attainment of an Ed.D. or Ph.D. Studies in the field of nursing have identified career development, scholarly practice, and professional leadership as perceived outcomes for Ph.D. graduates (Sakalys, J. et al, 2001). The challenge in educational leadership and this study was in identifying the indicators that operationalize perceived outcomes of graduates of Ed.D. programs in Educational Leadership. Walberg (1990) defined salient educational outcomes as (1) employment as a partial measure of how well a program is preparing graduates for selection of a position (2) earnings, which provide an immediate index of education’s interaction with the labor market; and (3) “externalities”, defined as the social benefits of education such as quantity and quality of research, political participation, and leadership. The definitions and terms for outcomes for graduates vary a great deal in the literature; therefore, the researchers selected three areas within this study in an attempt to operationalize perceived outcomes for Ed.D. graduates in educational leadership: evaluation of the program of study, personal benefits and professional leadership.

Ed.D. Program Evaluation

For the purposes of this study the researchers investigated response indicators that reflected graduates program evaluation of (a) advising; (b) coursework; (c) internship; and (d) dissertation.

Academic Advising

This study evaluated graduates perceptions of the academic advising offered by faculty in the Ed.D. program at ECU. At the doctoral level advising involves two different aspects. First, advising upon admission and during coursework in the program. This initial advising mostly involves developing a program of study based on the student areas of interest (ECU Student Handbook). The program of study therefore reflects courses that will advance and challenge students knowledge of theory within the content of the courses. Academic rigor and individual courses selected help transform the student into a scholarly practitioner. In this study, the researchers attempted to determine whether program advising was perceived by graduates of the program as informative and helpful in developing scholarly practitioners. The second aspect of academic advising typically occurs at the dissertation stage and therefore will be discussed in a later section entitled dissertation.

Coursework

The Ed.D. program is a 60 semester-hour program which includes a 24 semester-hour leadership courses, 12 semester-hours of elective coursework, 6 semester-hours of an action research based internship, 12 semester-hours of research courses, and 6 semester-hours dissertation. Additionally doctoral students must pass 4 examinations throughout the program: a 12 hour semester review, 40 hour semester review; dissertation proposal, and dissertation defense (ECU Ed.D. Handbook, 2006). The content of the coursework addresses current issues, theories and practical ideas of practice encountered in leadership at the district level and superintendency level. A requirement for admission includes at least three years work experience in educational leadership and a minimum of a masters degree in Educational Leadership (ECU Ed.D. Handbook, 2006). The content of the study is just as important as the learning experiences facilitated by the faculty that teach it. A study conducted by Haworth and Bair (2000) revealed that in school administration faculty who practiced problematization of professional knowledge and practice shaped Ed.D. graduates more reflective thinkers. Another finding of this study described typical instruction included collegial dialogue and collaborative activity that enriched the learning and development experience.

Faculty of Ed.D. program at ECU typically facilitate the learning process by making connections among theory, research, and practice developing a broad and integrative perspective on inquiry that substantially change the way graduates approach their professional practice. Some examples of this learning process include simulated and real world learning opportunities in which students apply, reflect , and reconsider intersections among field related theories, research, and practices. The academic rigor expected by the faculty play a crucial role in developing a scholarly practitioner in Educational Leadership as well as the adequate access and interaction with the faculty as students learn (Hackmann, & Price, 1995). In this study researchers attempted to assess graduates perceptions of the usefulness of the knowledge obtained from the course contents offered at ECU, as well as the helpfulness of the faculty in facilitating the learning process throughout the program.

Internship

Typically, students in a doctoral program in educational leadership complete an internship requirement (Hackmann, & Price, 1995). The internship experience provides an opportunity for students to translate theory to practice. These experiences add balance to the program curriculum balancing classroom study and work in schools with successful practitioners (Levine 2005). Internship experiences for Ed.D. students typically place them in situations where they solve problems of practice, shadow practicing administrators, and critically reflect on practice (Pounder, 1994; Williamson & Hudson, 2000). Internships therefore cement the theory in the doctor of education by expanding experiences and building on prior knowledge and practice. In this study researchers attempted to determine graduates perceptions to the extent to which the internship experiences helped translate theory to practice.

Dissertation

Typical doctoral degree programs in Educational Leadership continue to require a comprehensive exam and dissertation as primary requirements for exiting the doctoral program (Hackmann, & Price, 1995). The dissertation requirement at ECU requires two examination phases evaluated by each student’s dissertation committee members. The first examination entails the approval of the dissertation proposal of study and the second examination entails the defense of the dissertation study. The dissertation committee chair’s role at ECU is a mentoring role. Individualized mentoring of doctoral students through the dissertation process strengthens students’ confidence in them as learners allowing them see themselves as intelligent, skilled leaders for their profession (Hackmann, & Price, 1995). The mentoring process reaffirms the notion that that the Ed.D. program prepares scholarly practitioners as opposed to researchers in a field of study. Therefore, researchers in this study attempted to determine the degree to which graduates ECU’s Ed.D. program perceived the dissertation to help them become educational researchers through studies related to regional populations such as school, school district or state (Nelson & Coorough, 1994).

Attainment of an Ed.D.: Personal Benefits

In evaluating any program of study it is important to revise, improve, and restructure the advising, courses, internship experiences, and the dissertation process. Many evaluations are based on surveys and feedback from current students although it would benefit any program to assess the effects a doctorate degree in Educational Leadership to the student personally and to the field of education.

In a study conducted by North Carolina State University in assessing the effects of attaining an Ed.D., findings indicated that nearly half of the graduates in the program changed job responsibilities and salaries within the institution they were employed since they started the degree (Caison, 2002). Another personal benefit to any student completing a higher educational degree in any field is an increase in job income (Owings & Kaplan, 2004). Studies over a period of 25 years based on the Current Population Survey have clearly indicated that earnings increase with educational level where persons with doctoral degree earn an average of $89,400 (Day & Newburger, 2002). In North Carolina, an educational administrator with a doctorate degree could potentially earn higher income as well. Researchers in this study attempted to determine the average income increase, the increase in employability, and job promotions attributed to the attainment of the Ed.D. degree in Educational Leadership as reported by graduates.

In financial terms, education is an investment in human capital and raises the standard of living for individual and the community (Owings & Kaplan, 2004). The investment in human capital by obtaining an Ed.D. degree in education enhances the field of education by developing scholarly practitioners that, according to the intent of an Ed.D., will become leaders in raising standards within the public school system through professional leadership.

Attainment of an Ed.D.: Professional Leadership

The meaningful examination of program outcomes is one of the most challenging tasks facing those involved in the design and delivery of educational programs (Sakalys et al, 2001). The survey conducted in this study attempted to operationalize professional leadership. Based on the described purpose of the Ed.D., in Educational Leadership there were four main areas selected to be included in the study: involvement of professional organizations, involvement in leadership mentoring, involvement in scholarly activity, and involvement in legislative and policy development activities.

In general, there is evidence that persons with additional education more actively influence their elect government’s direction and policies than those with less education (Owings & Kaplan, 2004). If this is so, then it could be assumed that Ed.D. graduates may see the value in participating in professional organizations and influencing legislation and policy within public schools through active participation. Researchers in this study attempted to determine whether graduates have applied their leadership skills to benefit the field of education via legislative and policy development activities and involvement in professional organizations.

Involvement in scholarly activity such as presentations, research, or publications contributes new knowledge to the field of education. This involvement reverts to the discussion on the similarities and differences between an Ed.D. and Ph.D. degree, many critics state that the coursework and the program are virtually identical (Courtenay, 1988). The question arises, to what extent do the graduates of Ed.D. doctoral program engage in scholarly activities such as presentations, research, or publications typically known as educational outcomes of Ph.D. in Educational Leadership? Researchers in this study attempted to determine whether graduates have engaged in research in the field of educations and shared the research.

Involvement of leadership mentoring is a function of developing colleagues in leadership positions into high performing professionals. Graduates of an Ed.D. program have attained the highest level of self-actualization in the field of education. At these levels of knowledge and expertise, the researchers attempted to determine whether graduates have participated in developing leaders in the field of education via mentoring relationships.

Methodology

Participants

The participants used in this study were individuals who successfully completed the doctoral (Ed.D) program of study in educational leadership at East Carolina University located in eastern North Carolina. The researchers were granted permission from the department chairperson to review doctoral student completion data as well as personal contact information. Also, permission was granted from the director of teacher licensure within the specific college of education to ascertain additional contact information if needed for the study.

A graduate tracking system within the department of educational leadership at this university was reviewed to determine the total number of participants for the study. Since the inception of the Ed.D. program at ECU in 1990, there have been 82 graduates which doctorate degrees were conferred.

All 82 individuals were identified as possible participants in this study. The researchers were only able to locate 56 (68%) of the 82 individuals identified for the study; therefore, the study consisted of 56 participants who hold doctorate (Ed.D.) degrees from this university.

Survey Instrument

The survey instrument utilized was a modified version of an existing survey used by the Graduate School at East Carolina University to elicit responses from graduates related to program strengths, weaknesses, and overall experience. The researches modified that existing survey to relate questions directly associated with the doctorate degree along with the findings in the literature review. The survey attempted to operationalize perceived outcomes of graduates of the program based on three areas: program effectiveness (program evaluation), personal benefits, and professional benefits attributable to the attainment of the Ed.D. degree from East Carolina University. For the purposes of this study the researchers investigated response indicators that reflected graduates program evaluation of (a) advising; (b) coursework; (c) internship; and (d) dissertation. To determine personal benefits, for the purposes of this study, researchers investigated response indicators that indicated graduates’ perceptions of (a) employability; (b) job promotion; and (c) income increase. To determine professional leadership, for the purposes of this study, researchers investigated graduates’ perceptions of (a) involvement in professional organizations; (b) involvement in leadership mentoring; (c) involvement in scholarly activity, and (d) involvement in legislative and policy development activities. All of these indicators contribute to overall graduate perceptions of Ed.D. program at East Carolina University and the impact that the degree attainment has had on graduates personal lives and professional communities they work in.

The survey consisted of 23 questions using both a Likert scale format as well as open-ended questions. The Likert scale portion of the survey utilized the following responses: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree. The categorical data collected from the Likert scale questions were collated for statistical analysis. The open-ended questions of the survey allowed for qualitative responses in an effort to gain a greater insight into the impact of the program perceived by graduates. Specifically researchers asked these questions (a) Tell us your proudest accomplishment following graduation from the Ed.D. Program. (b) List involvement in professional organizations. (c) List involvement in legislative and policy development activities. (d) List involvement in leadership mentoring. (e) List honors/awards received since graduation from the Ed.D. Program. (f) List any presentations, research or publications following graduation from the Ed.D. Program.

Survey Method

The survey was formatted for use of electronic distribution to graduates of the Ed.D. program. The researchers utilized the expertise of a staff member in the technology department at the university so that the survey would be secure and the respondent’s identities remain anonymous.

The survey was conducted via email attachment to the 56 participants (68% of all graduates of the program). A cover letter explaining the nature of the survey accompanied the survey notice. The survey was emailed the end of March with notification of a three-week time frame for returned responses. The end of the three-week period only yielded 8 responses. A reminder email was sent to those participants who had not responded asking them to respond within two weeks if they would like to participate in the study. At the end of that time period, 18 participants (32%) had responded. The survey was then closed to additional responses.

Analysis of Data

The data from this study were received in access format and was imported into a software data system, SPSS. The software package was utilized to check data for number of respondents, descriptive statistics, and percentages of positive and negative responses. The researchers initially sought to analyze the data additionally using other statistical methods (such as a chi square) but because of the low response rate had to rely on percent of positive responses for the study. The responses from the Likert scale were grouped accordingly; strongly disagree, disagree and neutral represented negative responses while agree and strongly agree represented positive responses. The qualitative data received were analyzed by the researchers for reoccurring themes.

Descriptive Data

Descriptive data collected in the study consisted of gender, race, and cohorted groupings. Of the 18 respondents, 14 were female and 4 male; 16 respondents were white and 2 were black; 15 respondents indicated they were not in a cohort group, 3 respondents indicated they were in a cohort group (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Descriptions of respondents in the study

Results of the Study

The results of the study revealed both descriptive and qualitative data to determine the effectiveness of the doctoral program as well as the benefits received from the graduates.

Graduate Perceptions: Program Evaluation

For the purposes of this study the researchers investigated response indicators that reflected graduates program evaluation of (a) advising and faculty access; (b) academic rigor; (c) internship; and (d) dissertation. These four components provided some insight in determining the overall effectiveness of the program of study as well as areas of strengths and weaknesses. In this study, respondents noted that the dissertation process was the most effective area, 83.3 %, within the program of study (see Table 1). However the rest of the indicators scores were all in the range of 72%-77%. Scores for all indicators were above the average indicating that graduates of the Ed.D. program had positive perceptions of their programs of studies culminating with the highest positive experience during dissertation.

Table 2.

Program Evaluation Results

Additional qualitative data was elicited with open ended questions in the survey section of program evaluation. The open ended questions were: (a) In what ways were other students supportive in your Ed.D. program? (b) What factors were influential in completing the Ed.D. program? (c) What factors interfered with your Ed.D. program? (d) What suggestions can you give us for strengthening the Ed.D. program? Respondents indicated that the dissertation allowed students to engage in intensive research efforts under the guidance of a professor, which served as a culminating endeavor of evidence of scholarship. Academic rigor and professor access were the next noted as effective, both yielded response rates of 77.7%. The participants noted that the professors were quite accessible throughout the program of study but more specifically during the dissertation process. Also noted, was the expertise and knowledge of content, practice, and theory related to educational administration of the graduate faculty within the department of educational leadership as well as the practical approach, connecting theory to practice. Advising and the internship were noted as the next effective component of the program evaluation, 72.2% respectively for each component. Some respondents indicated that they did not receive appropriate advising due to the change of personnel in the chairperson role as well as some did not see the relevance nor practicality of an internship. Among the most noted themes from the respondents, the study of leadership styles, organizational theory, and a broadened leadership scope to make decisions were all areas of personal benefit directly related to the doctoral program of study. Additionally, some respondents felt that their leadership skills, as a result of the doctoral program, only improved slightly or adequately.

Graduate Perceptions: Personal Benefits

To determine personal benefits, for the purposes of this study, researchers investigated response indicators that indicated graduates’ perceptions of (a) employability; (b) job promotion; and (c) income increase. Results indicated that all (100%) respondents noted career promotions accompanied by increased salary.

Graduate Perceptions: Professional Leadership

To determine professional leadership, for the purposes of this study, researchers investigated graduates’ perceptions of (a) involvement in professional organizations; (b) involvement in leadership mentoring; (c) involvement in scholarly activity, and (d) involvement in legislative and policy development activities. Based on the data, 16% graduates indicated they have used their knowledge and skills gained through the program of study in a variety of means to contribute to the education community. These respondents noted work in policy development in local education agencies and at the state level, additional research, service on boards of educational organizations at the local and state levels, and adjunct faculty work at universities in leadership preparation programs. In addition, the graduates that have conducted this work also indicated their job roles to be at institutions of higher education.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Advanced leadership preparation programs, specifically at the doctoral level, may need to constantly evaluate their program of study to ensure the needs of the students are being met due to an ever-changing educational environment. This type of program evaluation may reveal specific areas of strengths and weaknesses that may serve as beginning baseline data for program enhancement as more program evaluation data are collected longitudinally.

This evaluation of the doctoral program of study at ECU revealed that students felt that the strength of the program was the dissertation process. The strength of this component may be due to the working relationship with the dissertation chair as well as the engagement in action research to add to the body of knowledge in education in an effort to strengthen, evaluate, and validate programs and strategies that lay within the K-12 school arena. The data also serve as a reminder that students need constant advising in order to maintain the cohesiveness with the university and their program of study. Additionally, the internship experience may need to be examined to ensure the program is meeting the educational needs of the students.

Due to meeting the diverse educational student needs, personal benefits may take many forms. This often happens because individuals internalize concepts and/or theories within their own perception and work environment; thus, contextually utilizing the knowledge learned to increase their benefit to the organization as well as themselves for future career advancement.

Professional leadership in terms of scholarly activities was evidenced by graduates that changed careers to work at IHE’s. The majority of graduates continued to be practitioners in their field but did not express much activity in the areas of scholarly publications and research presentations.

Based on the data, the following recommendations were made:

REFERENCES

Atwell, R. H. (1996 November, 29). Doctoral education must match the nation’s needs and realities of the marketplace. The Chronicle of Higher Education, B4-B5.

Bell, E. D., McDowelle, J. O., Lanier, S. P. & Lanier, M. K. (1996). A case study of an Ed.D. in educational leadership, school of education, ECU. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference November 11, Savanah Georgia

Broad Foundation and Thomas B. Fordham Foundation: Better Leaders for America’s Schools: A Manifesto (2003). www.edexcellence.net/manifesto/manifesto.html

Brooks P. (1996, December 20). Graduate learning as apprenticeship. The Chronicle of Higher Education, A52.

Caison, A. (2002). Alumni survey, July 2002. Report submitted to faculty. Eric document [Online]. Retrieved May 11, 2006.

Courtenay, B. D. (1988). Eliminating the confusion over the Ed.D. and PhD in Colleges and Schools of Education. Innovative Higher Education, 13(1), 11-20.

Day, J.C. & Newburger, E.C. (2002). The big payoff: Educational attainment and synthetic estimates of work-life earnings. Eric document [online]. Retrieved May 11, 2006.

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. The Review of Higher Education, 8(2), 169-186.

Hackmann, D. G, and Price, W. J. (1995). Preparing school leaders for the 21st century: Results of a national survey of educational leadership programs. Eric document.

Haworth, J. G. & Bair C. R. (2000). Learning experiences that make a difference: Findings from a national study of doctoral education in the professions. Speech/meeting paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE), Sacramento, CA Nov 16-19, 2000.

Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. The Education Schools Project.

National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration. Leaders for America’s Schools: The Report of the National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration. In Griffiths, Stout, and Forsyth, 1988 p 20.

Nelson, J.K., & Coorough, C. (1994). Content analysis of the Ph.D. vs Ed.D. dissertation. Journal of Experimental Education, 64(2). Online. Retrieved February 28, 2006.

Norton, M. S. (1992). Doctoral studies of students in educational administration program in non-member UCEA institutions. Educational Considerations, 20(1), 37-41.

Norton, M. S., & Levan, F.D. (1987). Doctoral studies of student in educational administration programs in UCEA member institutions. Educational Considerations, 14(1), 21-24.

Owings, W.A. & Kaplan, L.S. (2004). Pushing the perks of public education. The Education Digest [online]. Retrieved May 11, 2006.

Pounder, D.G. (1994). Evaluating: Theory-practice linkages in administrator preparation. Eric document retrieved May 11, 2006.

Thomas Foundation: the Manifesto

Sakalys, J.A., Stember, M. L., and Magilvy, J. K. (2001). Nursing doctoral program evaluation alumni outcomes. Journal of Professional Nursing, 17(2), 87-95.

Shulman, L.S., Golde, C.M. , Bueschel, A.C., & Garabedina, K.J., (2006). Reclaming educations’ doctorates: a critique and a proposal. Educational Researcher 25-32. Online http://www.aera.net/uploadedFiles/Publications/Journals/Educational_Researcher/3503/3592-03_Shulman_RN_C.pdf. Date: May 3, 2006.

Walberg H.J. (1990). Advances in educational productivity. In D.M. Windham, & D. W. Chapman (Eds.), The Evaluation of Educational Efficiency: Constraints, issues and policies, Vol I. Greenwich, CT, JAI Press, inc.

Williamson, R.D., & Hudson, M.B. (2000). Democracy is hard at work: The struggle to define one leadership preparation program. Eric document online retrieved May 11, 2006.

Appendix A

Survey Directions:

The Educational Leadership Department at ECU, in an effort to improve its Ed.D. Program, is conducting a study to determine alumni outcomes of this program. The main purpose is to better understand the benefits of this program to alumni and to determine areas where improvements are necessary. Because you are graduate of the Ed.D. in Educational Leadership, you have been selected to complete the survey below. Your answers to all questions are very important and will be summarized in a report that will be shared with the Educational Leadership Department at ECU and submitted for publication in research journals. Be assured, however, that your answers and identity will not be released. Participation in this study is voluntary. Your decision whether or not to participate will not affect your relationship with ECU.

The survey will take approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. Clicking continue on the first page of the survey indicates that you have read and understood the description of this survey and questionnaire and I agree to participate. Note that you are free to withdraw your consent and discontinue participation at anytime by simply closing the screen without clicking on submit at the end of the questionnaire.

Part 1. General Information. Select the option that best represents your answer to the question. Some questions will ask for you to type a short response

1. Graduation Date (range 1992 – 2005)

2. Gender M/F

3. Race: White/Hispanic/African American/Asian/Other ____________

4. Ed.D. Area of Concentration: Choices: Public School Administration, Higher Education Administration, Library Sciences, Technology

5. Did you complete the program as part of a cohort program? Yes/No

If yes, select the cohort: Executive, Green, Halifax, Raleigh

6. Current Job Title: ______________________

a. Is this job title a promotion obtained after graduation from the Ed.D. Program?

Yes/No

7. Check the approximate income increase/decrease after graduation from the Ed.D. Program (under $2,000, $2,001-$3,000, $3,001-$6,000, 6,001-10,000, $10,001 - $15,000, $15,001 or more)

Part 2. Program Evaluation: Please select the option that best illustrates your perception of the Ed.D. program. Some questions may ask for you to type a short answer.

8. The academic rigor of the program and individual courses is appropriate for the development of scholarly practitioners of educational leadership.

Strongly DisagreeDisagreeNeutralAgreeStrongly Agree

9. My advising in the program was informative and helpful.

Strongly DisagreeDisagreeNeutralAgreeStrongly Agree

10. I had adequate access and interaction with the faculty who taught courses in the Ed.D. program.

Strongly DisagreeDisagreeNeutralAgreeStrongly Agree

11. Overall the internship experience provided me with experiences that translated the theory to practice.

Strongly DisagreeDisagreeNeutralAgreeStrongly Agree

12. Overall the dissertation process provided me with the skills to become a researcher in the field of Educational Leadership.

Strongly DisagreeDisagreeNeutralAgreeStrongly Agree

Direction: Please provide answers to the questions below.

13. In what ways were other students supportive in your Ed.D. program?

14. What factors were influential in completing the Ed.D. program?

15. What factors interfered with your Ed.D. Program?

16. What suggestions can you give us for strengthening the Ed.D. Program?

Part 3. Degree Outcomes: Professional Leadership. Please type in your answers for the following questions:

17. Tell us your proudest accomplishment following graduation from the Ed.D. Program.

18. List involvement in professional organizations

19. List involvement in legislative and policy development activities

20. List involvement in leadership mentoring.

21. List honors/awards received since graduation from the Ed.D. Program.

22. List any presentations, research or publications following graduation from the Ed.D. Program

23. Use the space below to add any other comments or further explanations to any of the questions above.

Thank you for completing this survey.

Comments, questions, feedback, criticisms?

Send feedback

• E-mail the authors of the module, Evaluation of a Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership

Footer

More about this content: Metadata | Version History

• How to reuse and attribute this content
• How to Cite and attribute this content

This work is licensed by Marjorie C. Ringler and William Rouse under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 2.0).

Last edited by National Council of Professors of Educational Administration on Nov 16, 2007 11:14 am US/Central.