1.2 Reflections on the first 2 years of a doctoral program in  (Page 4/7)

Data were analyzed by the researcher and a graduate assistant and then coded into emergent categories developed through constant comparative method (Cresswell, 1998). This resulted in the categories that are reflected in the discussion that follows. In order to strengthen reliability, core faculty members read and gave input on the reflective narrative. Their suggestions were incorporated into the final report. The experiences discussed in this paper have been issues of discussion among the doctoral faculty. This has encouraged dialogue leading to program improvement even in the very early stages of implementation.

Setting for a New Doctoral EdD Program

A new doctoral program (EdD) was approved by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) in 2005. The program is housed in the Educational Leadership and Counseling Department at Lamar University, although it was created to have equal representation by faculty from all four departments in the College of Education (COE): Educational Leadership and Counseling, Pedagogy, Kinesiology, and Family Consumer Sciences. The program was created as a 60-hour credit cohort model and designed to be completed in eight semesters. Students take 12 hours of Dissertation, 12 hours of Research, 24 hours of Core classes that include leadership, ethics, change, learning theory, cultural issues and a required field-based internship or action problem. Two 12-hour cognates, which emphasize multiculturalism/diversity and effective schools, were approved. Although the program has a practitioner emphasis, a formal dissertation is the culminating experience. The expected student population was P-12 educators who were teachers, counselors, administrators.

Student Admissions

Reflecting on the issue of student admissions, we have seen three major issues in this area. The first is that of the student admissions process. The original THECB proposal limited acceptance to four traditional means: transcript grades, letters of recommendation, GRE scores, and a personal interview. This was the primary basis for student admissions for Cohort I. For Cohort 2, we began to experiment with other qualifiers that included current position, kinds of leadership experiences, length of experience, awards received, papers published, and presentations made. Consequently, we created a rubric that incorporated all 10 of these qualifiers and assigned points to each. This rubric has been valuable in our admissions process. We evaluate each application using the rubric in a screening process that determines who will be interviewed. After the interview, we total applicant points and meet as a faculty to determine whom to invite to join the cohort. For example, the second cohort had 38 applicants in the spring, 2006. Using the rubric as a screen and a guide, we identified 30 applicants to interview and accepted 22 for cohort 2.

During the spring, 2006 of the second year, we began reviewing the 47 applications for Cohort 3. Once again, the rubric was helpful in identifying 25 potential students. We accepted 15 students. Cohort 3 which began the program in the fall, 2006, is also the most diverse, with 15 students, 6 of whom are African American. We believe enlarging the scope of qualifiers in the rubric to include more specific leadership experiences contributed to a more diverse cohort.