Linking assessments to program outcomes in practitioner-oriented EdD programs: An alternative to comprehensive examinations

IF 1.1 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Adult and Continuing Education Pub Date : 2022-04-26 DOI:10.1177/14779714221093091
Sarah A. Capello
{"title":"Linking assessments to program outcomes in practitioner-oriented EdD programs: An alternative to comprehensive examinations","authors":"Sarah A. Capello","doi":"10.1177/14779714221093091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For decades, the field of education has been criticized for failing to distinguish between the PhD and EdD degrees. However, the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate has recently redefined the EdD as a professional practice doctorate and offered a framework for program (re)design that includes the generation and application of practitioner knowledge to identify, investigate, and solve problems of practice. This renewed focus on (re)designing EdD programs provides a timely segue into rethinking doctoral assessments in EdD programs. This document analysis demonstrates how one near-ubiquitous assessment, the comprehensive examination, can be reimagined to serve as a site for reinforcing practitioner-oriented program outcomes. This manuscript reports how an EdD program implemented alternative comprehensive examinations to support student growth toward a variety of practitioner-oriented program outcomes. The findings indicate that the alternative assessments fostered student growth in all program outcomes and allowed students to meet several purposes of traditional comprehensive exams while also demonstrating that other purposes of comprehensive exams are misaligned with revised visions for EdD education. The implications of this study are that EdD assessments should be aligned with program outcomes and that program administrators should abandon traditional comprehensive exams for assessments that support practitioner growth and development.","PeriodicalId":53962,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Adult and Continuing Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Adult and Continuing Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14779714221093091","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

For decades, the field of education has been criticized for failing to distinguish between the PhD and EdD degrees. However, the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate has recently redefined the EdD as a professional practice doctorate and offered a framework for program (re)design that includes the generation and application of practitioner knowledge to identify, investigate, and solve problems of practice. This renewed focus on (re)designing EdD programs provides a timely segue into rethinking doctoral assessments in EdD programs. This document analysis demonstrates how one near-ubiquitous assessment, the comprehensive examination, can be reimagined to serve as a site for reinforcing practitioner-oriented program outcomes. This manuscript reports how an EdD program implemented alternative comprehensive examinations to support student growth toward a variety of practitioner-oriented program outcomes. The findings indicate that the alternative assessments fostered student growth in all program outcomes and allowed students to meet several purposes of traditional comprehensive exams while also demonstrating that other purposes of comprehensive exams are misaligned with revised visions for EdD education. The implications of this study are that EdD assessments should be aligned with program outcomes and that program administrators should abandon traditional comprehensive exams for assessments that support practitioner growth and development.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
将评估与以从业者为导向的教育发展课程的课程结果联系起来:综合考试的替代方案
几十年来,教育领域一直因未能区分博士学位和教育博士学位而受到批评。然而,卡内基教育博士项目最近将EdD重新定义为专业实践博士,并为项目(重新)设计提供了一个框架,其中包括从业者知识的生成和应用,以识别、调查和解决实践问题。这种对(重新)设计教育发展课程的重新关注,为重新思考教育发展课程中的博士评估提供了及时的切入点。这份文件分析展示了如何重新构想一种几乎无处不在的评估,即综合考试,作为加强面向从业者的项目成果的场所。这份手稿报告了教育发展部项目如何实施替代性综合考试,以支持学生朝着各种以从业者为导向的项目结果发展。研究结果表明,替代评估促进了学生在所有项目结果中的成长,并使学生能够满足传统综合考试的几个目的,同时也表明综合考试的其他目的与EdD教育的修订愿景不一致。这项研究的意义在于,EdD评估应与项目结果保持一致,项目管理员应放弃传统的综合考试,转而进行支持从业者成长和发展的评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Adult and Continuing Education
Journal of Adult and Continuing Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
10.50%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: The journal is peer-reviewed and focuses on international and national issues and is aimed at researchers, professionals and practitioners in all sectors. It publishes both research articles and reflections on policy and practice, and offers opportunities for all concerned with post-compulsory education to make contributions to debate.
期刊最新文献
Teaching civics for sustainability in post-authoritarian order: The challenges of developing progressive citizenship in new democracies – Lessons from Poland Study on regional, linguistic, and media environments in urban, rural, and mountainous areas of Chiang Mai Province in northern Thailand for developing media education tools for rabies prevention Do household and childcare task divisions prospectively predict engagement in time-costly continuing education among Dutch working mothers and fathers? Advancing sustainable futures through education: A Montpellier case study on student-led advocacy for transdisciplinary approaches Korean assessment of adult basic literacy: Instrument development
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1