Supervising dissertation research in emerging online professional doctorate programs and the role of partner organizations AMANDA M. MADDOCKS, PHD CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO AMANDA.MADDOCKS@CUCHICAGO.EDU Copyright 2011 The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System 1
Introduction Professional doctorate in education EdD March 2008 partnership Face to face and asynchronous online modes of delivery How will we supervise dissertation research online? How can we best leverage our partner relationships? Copyright 2011 The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System 2
Theoretical Framework Use of partner organizations = best practice EdD v. PhD Overlaps between the research, the classroom and the workplace Copyright 2011 The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System 3
Case Example Teacher Leadership program State professional administrators association Action research Blackboard Adobe Connect Copyright 2011 The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System 4
Considerations In the supervision of doctoral dissertation research, what is the role of the university? The supervisor? The partner organization? If workplace supervisors, individuals affiliated with the partner organization, and traditional university faculty will be used during a student s research process, how should these individuals be prepared? How do they need to be prepared differently? How do nontraditional faculty and/or supervisors become qualified for very real academic work and relationships with students during their dissertation research (USCGS, 2007), and how is this done online? Copyright 2011 The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System 5
What does it look like? Development Course rooms monitoring, storage Discussion boards committee work, peer collaboration Virtual meetings defenses, trainings Copyright 2011 The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System 6
Conclusions & Recommendations Quality Assurance Ease into partnerships Think holistically Engage partners in all aspects of program Copyright 2011 The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System 7
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. Burnett, P.C. (1999). The supervision of doctoral dissertations using a collaborative cohort model. Counselor Education & Supervision, 39, 1, 46-52. Caboni, T. C., & Proper, E. (2009). Re-envisioning the professional doctorate for educational leadership and higher education leadership: Vanderbilt University s Peabody College Ed.D. Program. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 61 68. 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. Copyright 2011 The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System 8