1. Evolution of a Problem-based,
Improvement-focused EdD
Capstone: Theory and Practice
Doug Archbald, Ph.D.
School of Ed, University of Delaware
CPED June Convening
2014

2. • Research versus problem solving for the education
leadership doctoral thesis: Implications for form and
function. Educational Administration Quarterly, 2008.
• “Breaking the mold” in the dissertation: Implementing a
problem-based, decision-oriented thesis project. Journal
of Continuing Higher Education, 2010.
• The GAPPSI Method: Problem-solving, Planning, and
Communicating - Concepts and Strategies for Leadership in
Education. NCPEA Press, 2013.
 http://www.ncpeapublications.org/ncpea-press.html
(GAPPSI = Gap Analysis for Problem Solving, Planning, and School
Improvement)
This talk draws from below … (and 20+ years of
teaching, advising, and service in EdD program)

3. My main message:
If the culminating EdD project is
problem solving for organizational
improvement, then this argues for
a portfolio-like final product.

4. Timeline: Key Events & Transitions
Mid-80s Early
90s
1990-2000 2005-2006 2009-2010 2013
UD-SOE
EdD
Program
established
and within
a few years
“EPP”
invented.
Program is
traditional
“Ed
Admin”
A PhD also
offered
Faculty
turnover;
more
research
oriented
faculty
added
Quality and
rigor of EPP
thesis
improves.
EPP is
mainly
thought of
as “a study
with
recommend
-ations.”
• New EdD
Coordinator
• Big EdD program
divides into two
smaller
concentrations
• Several new
faculty members
become affiliated
with EdD program
• “Buy-in” starts to
develop for
changing the EPP
One of the two
concentrations
starts shifting
toward a
“portfolio-like”
model (the K-
12 school
/district
leadership
concentration).
ELP
adopt
ed as
policy
CAPSTONE
“Education Leadership
Portfolio” (ELP)
CAPSTONE
“Executive Position Paper”
(EPP) as EdD thesis

5. The “EPP”
(Executive
Position Papers)

6. “Executive Position Papers” (EPP):
The Vision
• EdD Candidate (a practitioner) poses
an issue requiring a decision
• Use literature and available data to
become informed and decide
• Three Chapters:
Paper 1: Literature
Paper 2: Local study
Paper 3: Recommendations

7. • The EPP vision was sensible, but
vague
• In practice, 120-150 paper comes
out looking like a three chapter
dissertation
• Some examples follow

8. School District Decision-making:
A Case Study

9. Coming to Voice: Discourses, Identities and Achievement
Among Women of Color in the Community College

10. Coming to Voice: Discourses, Identities and Achievement
Among Women of Color in the Community College

11. Coming to Voice: Discourses, Identities and Achievement
Among Women of Color in the Community College

12. Coming to Voice: Discourses, Identities and Achievement
Among Women of Color in the Community College

13. A Comparative Study of Itinerant Teachers’
Perceptions of Pull-out and Collaborative Service
Delivery Models for Students With Hearing Loss

15. Timeline: Key Events & Transitions
Mid-80s Early
90s
1990-2000 2005-2006 2009-2010 2013
UD-SOE
EdD
Program
established
and within
a few years
“EPP”
invented.
Program is
traditional
“Ed
Admin”
Faculty
turnover;
more
research
oriented
faculty
added
Quality and
rigor of EPP
thesis
improves.
EPP is
mainly
thought of
as “a study
with
recommend
-ations.”
• New EdD
Coordinator
• Big EdD program
divides into two
smaller concentrations
• Several new faculty
members become
affiliated with EdD
program
• “Buy-in” starts to
develop for changing
the EPP
One of the two
concentrations
starts shifting
toward a
“portfolio-like”
model (the K-12
school /district
leadership
concentration).
ELP
adop
ted
CAPSTONE
“Education Leadership
Portfolio” (ELP)
CAPSTONE
“Executive Position Paper”
(EPP) as EdD thesis

16. Timeline: Key Events & Transitions
Ear
ly
90s
2003-2004 2005-2006 2009-2010 2013
Two competing perspectives and
corresponding questions:
1) EPPs need to be better in
exposition, analysis,
methods. How to improve
their empirical and
scholarly quality?
2) Why are practitioners
required to write up a 130
page study that won’t get
published or affect their
work?
• New EdD
Coordinator
• Big EdD program
divides into two
smaller
concentrations
• Several new
faculty members
become affiliated
with EdD program
• “Buy-in” starts to
develop for
changing the EPP
One of the
two
concentrations
starts shifting
toward a
“portfolio-
like” model
(the K-12
school /district
leadership
concentration)
ELP
adopt
ed as
policy
CAPSTONE
“Education Leadership
Portfolio” (ELP)
CAPSTONE
“Executive Position Paper” (EPP)
as EdD thesis

17. An “actual”* versus
a “research” problem
• Example issue: high drop out rate
• Research problem: gap in knowledge –
causal theory – explaining dropping out
• Example study: “Does extra-curricular participation affect
attendance and persistence?”
Review lit
Develop research design
Collect and analyze data
Report findings & draw conclusion
*"organizational improvement
problem" is a useful term in this
context

18. Three Key Differences Between “Research”
problem and “Actual” problem (aka
“OIP”*)
(1) Actual/OIP: Problem is a GAP
between current and desired state
in organization
(2) Actual/OIP: Multiple questions
and tasks
(3) Actual/OIP: Persuasion, not
proof
*"organizational improvement
problem" is a useful term in this
context

19. An “actual "problem versus
a “research” problem
• Issue: high drop out rate
• Actual problem … the GAP between
current state and desired (goal) state in
an organization.
• Problem statement? My school’s drop
out rate is too high (TLO/TMO statement)
… What do I (we) do?

20. Problem solving (OIP) goal
versus research goal
• “Actual” problem solving goal: Reduce
the gap between organization’s current
state and desired (goal) state (e.g.,
reduce drop out rate)
• Research problem goal: Reduce gap in
understanding of causes of dropping out
(knowledge gap)

21. Difference #2 Between
“Research” problem and
“Actual” problem (“OIP”*)
(1) Actual/OIP: Problem is a GAP between current and desired state in
organization
(2) Actual problem (OIP): Multiple
questions and tasks
(3) Actual/OIP: Persuasion, not proof
*"organizational improvement
problem" is a useful term in this context

22. OIPs (like drop out problem) have multiple
causes; raise many questions
Any one of
these arrows
is potentially
subject to
empirical
inquiry

23. Problem solving
requires knowing about
current conditions and
practices in the
organization
Problem solving is aided
by reading relevant
literature and talking
with others

24. Problem solving
requires breaking
down “bottom line”
problem into sub-
problems:
- Weak parental
support?
- Gaps in student
mentoring?
- Inadequate progress
monitoring of at-
risk students?

25. Ill-structured problems, multiple questions
SOURCE: Archbald, D. (2013). GAPPSI book, NCPEA Press (link above).

26. Difference #3 Between
“Research” problem and
“Actual” problem (“OIP”*)
(1) Actual/OIP: Problem is a GAP between current and
desired state in organization
(2) Actual/OIP: Multiple questions and tasks
(3) Actual/OIP: Informed judgment,
not proof guides decisions
*"organizational improvement problem"
is a useful term in this context

27. Informed judgment:
Problem solving and
organizational
improvement require
decisions and actions
under conditions of
uncertainty (also
time pressures) Evidence is necessary;
but information is never
complete. There are no
“P values” for decision
outcomes.

28. Parents
Community
Members
Organizational
Colleagues/Staff
Policy-
makers
Leadership for problem solving and organizational
improvement must influence multiple organizational
audiences and stakeholders
Board or
Trustees

29. • Leadership (OIP) communications seek
to persuade organizational audiences
to:
understand the current state
understand the goal state
believe the goal state is desirable
believe there is a gap between the current state
and the goal state
believe the goal state is possible to achieve
believe costs required to achieve the goal state are
justified (i.e., worth the effort)

30. Four Criteria of Acceptability
• Developmental efficacy: Dissertation prepares for a career in research;
EdD capstone must prepare for the top level demands of practice:
leadership qualities and professional expertise.
• Community benefit: Dissertation serves scholarly community and society
with new knowledge; EdD capstone serves candidate’s organization and
community.
• Intellectual stewardship: Dissertation must uphold values of scholarship
and scholarly knowledge; EdD capstone must uphold values of critical
thinking, disciplined inquiry, reflective practice.
• Distinctive form: Dissertation has widely recognized form and content;
EdD capstone must aim for its own unique “signature” format.
SOURCE: Archbald, D. (2008). Research versus problem solving for the education leadership doctoral thesis:
Implications for form and function. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 704-739.

31. Timeline: Key Events & Transitions
1990-2000 2005-2006 2009-2010 2013
Quality and
rigor of EPP
thesis
improves.
EPP is
mainly
thought of
as “a study
with
recommend-
ations.”
• New EdD
Coordinator
• Big EdD program
divides into two
smaller concentrations
• Several new faculty
members become
affiliated with EdD
program
• “Buy-in” starts to
develop for changing
the EPP
One of the two
concentrations starts
shifting toward a
“portfolio-like” model
(the K-12 school/district
leadership
concentration).
ELP
adopted as
policy
CAPSTONE
“Education Leadership
Portfolio” (ELP)
CAPSTONE
“Executive Position Paper”
(EPP) as EdD thesis

32. Web-based
Storing and
Accessing ELP
in Shared
Google Drive

33. Issues and Challenges
• Evaluation challenges
Empirical analysis
Products
Reflection
• Thesis mentoring challenges
• Confidentiality