1.2 Reflections on the first 2 years of a doctoral program in  (Page 2/7)

Literature Review

The process of change is never without difficulty whether it happens at a university, K-12 school or any other entity (Fullan, 2001). However, dialogue often initiates change which leads to close inspection that is required for existing programs to re-invent themselves. Thus old and even new doctoral programs should be continually involved in a reflective dialogic change process of refinement to establish their own validity. In other words, authentic change is the catalyst for ongoing learning and evaluation that results in improvement for organizations at every level (Starratt, 2004). As older programs are revised and new programs are created, an understanding of the following issues is helpful: admissions, curriculum content, role of PhD or EdD, and the changing cultural climate at the department level created.

Admissions to a Doctoral Program

Young (2006) reviewed the literature on student admissions and found only one empirical study encouraging potential students in applying to a doctoral program. This study focused primarily on the recruitment brochure (Young, Galloway,&Rinehart, 1990). Young (2006) noted that recruitment efforts and sound selection techniques are important to obtain quality doctoral student enrollment. Creighton and Jones (2001) reported that most doctoral programs rely for cohort selection on undergraduate and graduate grade point averages, and scores from a standardized examination. This lack of admissions information led Young (2006) to analyze historical data from one doctoral program involving 203 applicants over a period of 10 years. He found that by using linear equations derived from undergraduate and graduate GPA and GRE scores paying particular attention to the verbal and quantitative sections, potential applicants’likely success (or lack of success) could be identified.

Curriculum Content

In 1987, the National Commission on Excellence in Educational Administration report criticized administrator preparation programs and among the recommendations suggested that there should be an emphasis on theoretical and clinical knowledge, applied research and supervised practice (Jackson&Kelley, 2001). Over the next 2 decades this criticism has led to closer review of existing programs especially in the areas of knowledge base, clinical experience (field-based internships), and instructional strategies (cohort groups, problem-based learning, issues of equity and democracy) (Donmoyer, Imber&Scheurich, 1995; Milstein, 1993). Originally much of the discussion focused on principal and superintendent preparation programs, which were generally Masters-level and certification programs. Doctoral programs were also increasingly revised (Jackson&Kelley, 2001).

The process of reviewing and reframing new and existing university preparation programs has led to a model identified as scholar practitioner, which emphasizes bridging the gap between theory and practice. Mullen (2005) described scholar practitioner as redefining what an“intellectual is and does,”and specifically as someone“who gravitates toward inquiry [to] guide their practical knowing and [to]see the possibilities and limitations of theory in practice”(p. 47). Anderson and Saavedra (2003) pointed out that curriculum focuses on student problem based learning that“[makes] meaning about their social world”(p. 1). According to Starratt (2004), scholar-practitioner programs challenge university professors to become engaged in a dialogue that considers the learning process and the work of educators and results in connecting“more fully and more efficaciously to the human project”(p. 267). In this way professors become“bridge scholars”(p. 265).