The document summarizes research from a FIPSE grant that studied changes to EdD programs influenced by the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED). It presents findings from analyses of case studies of 21 institutions and surveys of students, faculty, and researchers involved in the project. Key findings include that schools adopted CPED principles and design features to create innovative EdD programs, with changes to signature learning processes, environments, and engagement. Students reported learning to apply theory to practice and solve problems, while faculty noted changes to programs, benefits of participation, and influence of communication and CPED principles. Researchers who participated reported cognitive and relationship benefits and would likely volunteer again.

1. What We Know and How We
Know it FIPSE Results
Prepared by:
Jill Perry
Debby Zambo
Susan Wunder
Contributors: Ray R. Buss, Ron Zambo, and Tiffany R. Williams

2. Fund for the Improvement of Post-
secondary Education (FIPSE) grant
• received in 2010
• focused on 21 original Phase I members
• sought to document and evaluate:
1. change in the structure of graduate schools
2. change in the signature learning processes,
learning environments, and patterns of
engagement of faculty and candidates in CPED-
influenced EdD programs
3. fidelity to a set of guiding principles developed
in Phase 1
Disseminate lessons learned and best practices.

3. Overall Data and Analytical Process
DATA: 21 cases and 3 surveys (student, faculty, researcher) with both close-
and open-ended items
Analysis of all measures aimed at ensuring
credibility/trustworthiness/validity/reliability
ANALYSIS OF CASES: Focused on finding commonalities and complexities
within and across CPED institutions.
• performed f-2-f and virtually
• entailed multiple iterations
• cases read reread, examined through theoretical framework (Rogers) for
answers to RQs
• cases coded and re-coded
• matrix created for each case
• from matrices themes developed and from these claims/assertions made

4. Understanding How Schools of Education have
Redesigned the Doctorate of Education
Jill Alexa Perry
Debby Zambo
Susan Wunder
Paper presented at the 2014 American Educational
Researchers Association Annual Meeting

5. Theoretical Frame and Methodology
• Rogers (1995) Diffusion of Innovation
• original data collected and analyzed by by 38
researchers – wrote 21 cases
• cross-case analysis conducted by 3 researchers
• proceeded through multiple levels

6. Prior to Joining CPED Institutions
Experienced Issues and Pressures
Internal issues and confusion:
• coursework not distinct
• low quality dissertations
• students in wrong programs
• declining enrollments
• ABDs
External pressures:
• state level – improved leadership preparation
• districts and organizations – better prepared employees
and research partners
• students – programs to prepare them to take on leadership
roles

7. CPED Influenced Policy
• time to degree
• number of required degree credits
• dissertation format
• dissertation oversight

8. CPED Influenced Programs
Programs incorporated and used (in varied ways)
• CPED’s six principles
• CPED’s six design features scholarly practitioner
Cohorts
Courses
• Content, sequence and focused on practice
New pedagogies
Collaborative learning environments
Intensified patterns of engagement
Dissertations in practice

9. CPED had an Impact on Deans
• new ways to bargain and collaborate
• communication opportunities and status with
upper administration and other deans
• cache that allowed them to introduce the idea
of programmatic change
• support required

10. CPED had an Impact on Faculty
• shift in workload and faculty positions
• shift in pedagogy
• shift in relationships with students
• a national network (convenings)
• cache
• not all faculty open to change and could slow
change
• junior tenure-track faculty fit into tenure
• some practitioners hired as clinical faculty did
not feel welcome

11. CPED had an Impact on Students
• clearer direction - sequence of courses
• focused on their own problems of practice
and professional goals
• respect for their practitioner knowledge
• extended communication and interaction with
faculty
• cohorts and support groups
• satisfaction with their programs

12. Cross Case Conclusions
• Schools of education adopted the CPED design
features and principles and diffused them
throughout their organizations to create
innovative and distinct EdD programs.
• Changes occurred in the signature learning
processes, learning environments, and
patterns of engagement.
• Lessons learned and best practices are
emerging.

13. Seven Years After the Call: Students’ and
Graduates’ Perceptions of the Re-envisioned
Ed.D.
Ron Zambo
Debby Zambo
Ray R. Buss
Jill Alexai Perry
Tiffany R. Williams
Innovative Higher Education 2013

14. Student Survey
1. What are students in newly designed Ed.D.
programs learning? Does what they are learning
align with CPED’s principles?
2. How are students in Ed.D. programs learning?
Does this type of learning/teaching align with
CPED’s design concepts?
3. Do students in Ed.D. programs see themselves
as scholarly practitioners? If so, what does this
mean?
4. Why are students pursuing an Ed.D.?

15. Instrument
Online questionnaire 6-point Likert scale (Strongly
Agree to Strongly Disagree)
• 32 close-ended items based on CPED’s vision of a
scholarly practitioner, its principles, and design
features
• 1 open-ended item asking participants why they
pursued an Ed.D. from a CPED-influenced program

16. Participants
• 296 respondents - 14 (67%) of the 21 institutions
• 266 students currently enrolled in a program
• 30 recent graduates
• 64% female - 36% male
• held education related positions for 14 years
143 (65.9%)PK-12 69
(31.8%) post secondary education
(2.3%) professions outside of education

17. Construct with CPED
Principle
Mean SD Alpha
Range
by
Institution
Learning to collaborate
and form partnerships
(Prin. #3)
5.26 0.81 0.78 4.75-5.71
Learning to apply what
they learn to solve
problems of practice
(Prin. #6)
5.11 0.84 0.80 4.42-5.68
Learning to connect
theory to their practice
(Prin. #5)
5.08 0.88 0.83 4.27-5.82
Becoming leaders
working toward positive
change (Prin. #2)
5.06 0.83 0.65 4.36-5.45
Becoming scholarly
practitioners (Broad
Goal)
5.02 0.76 0.79 4.31-5.54
Learning to engage with
diverse communities and
work toward social
justice (Prin. #1)
4.73 0.91 0.74 4.25-5.70
Learning through
authentic experiences
(Prin. #4)
4.55 1.21 0.72 3.53-5.36

18. Open-Ended Item: Why an Ed.D.?
• professional, career related advancement
• personal reasons
• development and growth
• because of the degree itself

19. Faculty Members’ Responses to Implementing
New EdD programs
Ray R. Buss
Ron Zambo
Debby Zambo
Jill Alexia Perry
Tiffany R. Williams
under review

20. Faculty Survey
1. How and to what extent have variables associated
with Rogers’ theory on diffusion and adoption of
an innovation influenced program changes,
implementation, and outcomes in newly
designed/redesigned EdD programs?
1. How and to what extent have CPED principles
related to EdD program improvement influenced
program changes, implementation, and outcomes
in newly designed/redesigned EdD programs?

21. Instrument
Online questionnaire 6-point Likert scale ( Strongly Agree to Strongly
Disagree)
55 close-ended items that asked about:
• changes to their programs
• benefits resulting from their participation in CPED
• use of the six CPED principles
• conceptualizations and outcomes of various redesign efforts
• communication channels, time, social system of faculty members
and adoption of redesign efforts
two open-ended items:
• Describe two important changes that occurred in your program
because of your participation in CPED
• Do you have any comments or questions?

22. Participants
61 faculty members from 12 institutions who
had shaped, developed, and worked in their EdD
program

23. Criterion variable df, F test statistic and p Adjusted R2 Individual Predictor
Variables that Were
Statistically Significant
Program changes F(2, 58) = 76.65,
p < .001
.72 Communication channels,
CPED Principle 4
Innovation implementation F(3, 57) = 40.65,
p < .001
.67 Social system of faculty
members,
Communication channels,
CPED Principle 1
Program orientation F(3, 57) = 44.13,
p < .001
.68 CPED Principle 1,
Social system of faculty
members,
CPED Principle 4
Program attractiveness F(2, 58) = 11.20,
p < .001
.25 Social system of faculty
members,
Time
Program learning environment F (2, 58) = 29.97,
p < .001
.49 Communication channels,
CPED Principle 4
Program benefits from
participating in CPED
F(3, 57) = 40.23,
p < .001
.66 CPED Principle 2,
Communication channels,
CPED Principle 4
All construct scales demonstrated acceptable levels of reliability (0.70
or higher) except for principle #4

24. Open-ended Items
Changes and Comments
Six themes:
• program focus/orientation
• program changes
• logistics of program implementation
• faculty members’ perspectives
• program outcomes because of changes
• value of participating in CPED

25. Researching the Researchers: The Influence of a
Sense of Belonging on Faculty and Student Research
Volunteers
Debby Zambo
Ray R. Buss
Ron Zambo
Jill Alexia Perry
Paper presented at the 2014 American Educational
Researchers Association Annual Meeting
Paper under review

26. Researcher Survey
1. What were the CPED-FIPSE researchers’
motivations to volunteer?
2. What did the researchers learn through their
participation in the research project?
3. What was the greatest benefit the
researchers gained as a result of
participating?
4. Would the researchers participate again?

27. Instrument
Online questionnaire 6-point Likert scale ( Strongly Agree to Strongly
Disagree)
22 close-ended items
• six constructs loosely based on Nambisan and Baron (2007) sense of
belonging
• reliability of each construct ranged from .71 to .96.
five opened-ended items
• Why did you volunteer for the FIPSE research project?
• What did your learn from your participation in the research project?
• What did your learn about CPED?
• What was the greatest benefit you gained as a result of participating?
• If you were asked to volunteer again would you do it?

28. Participants
• twenty-seven (out of possible 38) completed
the questionnaire (71% response rate)
• from various CPED-institutions

29. Construct Group
Faculty Fellows Overall
Cognitive Benefits 4.38 (1.40)* 5.90 (0.32) 4.94
Connectedness to Research
Group 4.85 (0.68) 4.50 (1.44) 4.72
(Social-integrative Benefits)
Connectedness to CPED 4.94 (0.87) 4.78 (0.95) 4.88
(Social-integrative Benefits)
Personal Expectations 4.85 (0.77) 5.40 (0.70) 5.05
(Personal-integrative Benefits)
Needs Fulfilled (Hedonistic) 5.12 (0.60) 4.83 (1.25) 5.01
Usefulness of Training Materials 4.65 (0.89) 5.50 (0.50) 4.96
*Note: SD are in parentheses.

30. Open-ended Items
Question 1—Reasons for volunteering
Faculty
• learn about research, programs, and change
• reciprocate
• network
Fellows (students)
• learn about qualitative research and case study
methodology
• strengthen research skills
• apply what they had learned
• socialize
• encouraged to join

31. Question 2—What participants learned
Faculty
• information about CPED as an organization
• variation in programs
• struggles associated with making changes
Fellows
• learned about CPED in ways that were different
from faculty
• variations in programs
• faculty relationships
• change process

32. Question 3—Benefits of participating
Faculty
• learning about change
• validation of changes in their programs
(reputation)
• self-efficacy
Fellows
• research
• relationships/networks

33. Question 4—would they participate in the future?
Faculty
78% would, 17% would not, and 5% would, but had reservations
would - they and their programs benefited
would with reservations - if it fit their research agenda
(tenure)
would not – too time consuming
Fellows
50% would, 20% would not, and 30% would, but had
reservations
• would - relationships, exposure to like-minded people, work
with faculty members
• would with reservations , time and resources
• would not – not enough involvement, took too much work

34. Conclusions
cognitive benefits (4.94)
• learned about CPED, research, programs, and
change from like-minded individuals closest to
the source
social-integrative benefits (4.72)
• network
• socialize –form relationships
personal-integrative Benefits (5.52)
• reputation and self-efficacy (faculty)
hedonistic (5.01)
• most would volunteer again

35. Copyright 2014 by the Carnegie Project on the
Education Doctorate, Inc. (CPED). The
foregoing material may be used for
noncommercial educational purposes,
provided that CPED is acknowledged as the
author and copyright holder. Any other use
requires the prior written consent of CPED.