June 07 Convening Home 

Day 1

Discussion of the Carnegie Project for the Educational Doctorate, David Imig

Where has this come from? What we are trying to do? What are some of the outcomes we hope for three years from now?
We have had a great deal of interest from a variety of institutions. Representatives here are run the gamut of types of schools.
How do we create a community of scholars, not individuals, but a group working together for the good of all to create 22 pilots? The goal is the ultimate transformation of doctorate education in this country.

Goal: To design, develop, pilot and evaluate new professional practice doctorates in Education.

Rationale: Research extensive doctorate programs must confront the challenge of preparing the next generation of school leaders and educational faculty with creative solutions to persistent problems.

Contribution of Carnegie Foundation: Support/CID experience/ Leadership/staging/display.

Guiding work: Shulman, Reclaiming Education’s doctorates, Shulman (2000) Rethinking the Doctorate
Nettles & Millett (2006) Three Magic Letters: Getting to the PhD, also Golde & Walker 2006, Levine 2007, Crow 2005, Richardson 2006.

We are in the midst of a movement for change that we can embrace and be leaders in. Why the initiative
• Advocacy of the CF with work of PhD
• Preeminence challenged with competion from alternative providers (Carey Report) – Nova SE, Capella, and Argosy are three of largest providers of doctorates in the country.
• Quality assessment and accountability/advocacy for standards (NRC rankings and Accreditation.
• Emerging discussion about professional practice doctorates (Psych, A & S, Pharmacology, Social work, nursing, engineering)
• Funding issues at state and federal levels
• Analysis of Campus Programs (Levine) and Expectations for the Future (NSF/CGS 2020 project)
• Employer and Candidate dissatisfaction (Woodrow Wilson & U Washington Center)
• The ultimate reason is we want to make our programs better to better serve schools and children.

Outcomes of the Convening
• Create an intellectual community
• Gain a commitment of CPED sites into the “big ideas”
• Engage Multiple Voices in the Reconsideration of the Professional Practice Doctorate
• Create High Expectations for Campus Activity (Recognizing the challenges of building support)
• Many professional organizations (NSF and AERA) are already working on distinction between doc programs
• Gain Involvement in Building a set of design elements
• Appreciate what others are doing and why our efforts are important
• Set agenda for October

Organizing the project (Creating demonstration proofs):
• Candidate admissions – who are the candidates that come to the program, who can come, who should come, how do we draw people into the program.
• Development of a signature pedagogy (what is a signature pedagogy that defines us, maybe it is more than one, maybe they are bundled together to describe our doc program)
• Core course: methodological, theoretical/foundational
• Capstone Experiences – What ought to be a set of capstone experiences for students who should go out and be school leaders? Where does the dissertation fit? Are there other types of dissertations to be used?
• A culture of evidence – Carnegie is committed to this. What is the evidence that we gather and can use to demonstrate to prospective candidates and others to demonstrate that what we do matters.
• Designing laboratories of Practice. – Lee’s notion – part of this meeting is an opportunity to understand how what others are doing can help us create genuine and better practice laboratories.

Preliminary Data Summary and Findings across CPED Institutions, Jill Perry

• 21 institutions , 3 didn’t respond, data limited at each institution
• Hard to separate PhD and EdD stats
• Questions not specific enough
• Looking at commonalities of programs in institutions.
• There are six main focus area groupings
1. Focus in specific depts.
2. Signature pedagogies and capstones
3. Largest group is educational leadership
4. Involving local education community
5. State-wide institutional collaboration
6. Programs designed for specific cohorts

The Scholarship of Teaching: What have we learned? Pat Hutchins, Vice president of CF Center for Teaching and Learning

The scholarship of teaching and learning is a “big idea” my job is to make it sharper not smaller.
Will provide a definition, which brings us to who’s included, excluded and whose territory it is.

Huber and Hutchings, The Advancement of Learning
“viewing the work of the classroom as a site for inquiry, asking and answering questions about students’ learning in ways that can improve one’s own classroom and also advance the larger profession of teaching.”
What goes on in the classroom is very important. If you skip over that you skip over a lot. Focus on what students learn. From Ernie Boyer book.
What are the attributes and defining characteristics – scholarship of teaching and learning – How do they map on to the notion of professional practice?
• Embracing the problems of practice
• Design experiments
• An ethic of improvement
• A culture of evidence
• Collaborative knowledge building
o This cluster maps well on to what we call Professional practice.
o These two things reinforce each other and feed into each other
o Is the scholarship of teaching and learning a signature pedagogy of professional practice.

We as faculty are engaged in a mirror of what we are preparing our students for. We are modeling that for our students so that they might do what we are preparing them to do. – Shulman

5 attributes
1. Embracing the problems of practice – (lengthy quote from Randy Bass on ppt)
We need to think about teaching as if it were more like research. Asking about a problem in teaching is less like an invitation and more like an accusation. If you’ve got a problem embrace it, if you don’t have one go find one, because there are plenty of problems that need investigation. This is teaching broadly construed, you may need to reframe as I am talking. Pointing us toward things in the field that are both hard to teach and hard to learn. Some concepts are just harder for students to comprehend than others.
From discussion: Maybe we aren’t teaching the right things because we are looking towards the research to see what we should be teaching instead of looking to the field problems to see what our students need to learn.

2. Design Experiments
“In reality, I was teaching this course as I was experimenting with it and studying it, and under those conditions as you sometimes have to change the script as you go . . .[because you realize that would be better for the students].” William Cerbin, Univ. of WI

From Discussion (FD): “Not just the problems of existing practice, but shaping what you want the environment to look like. For example in educational leadership, as we produce future leaders, we need to ask questions about where we are we going.” David Marsh

FD: Think of the collection of experiences of individual students as the arc of development that you want to create collectively for your students throughout the course/program. Lee Shulman

FD: The phrase of “design experiments” conjures up very different things for most people that is not what we are aiming for. Maybe we don’t have the right language for it yet. Charol Shakeshaft

3. An Ethic of Improvement
There are different expectations for professors than teachers at other levels. Many expect that most students will not pass, but some are changing expectations to help students find success. Fundamental changes of paradigm will require a review of basic assumptions. Dennis Jacobs, Notre Dame was given an Intro to chemistry course with high failure rate. He felt he had an ethical responsibility to redesign course with new model of focus on conceptual thinking and collaboration.

FD: Shulman – One of the things we found since people came from different disciplines is that some people need different types of evidence to convince colleagues. People use different methods and require different degrees of evidence.

FD: Harold Keller – Its important when the focus is on the program it requires a community of learners and scholars. Something we are not encountering much in higher education. We are not getting together to compare notes.

4. A Culture of Evidence
• It’s a hard thing to build; we need these metaphors to help understand what we are doing.
• Need to look in the mirror to see if we are doing what we are trying to do.
• We need to look closely (magnifying glass) to see if the details are in the right order.
• Need windows so others can look in and see what we are doing and we can compare to what they are doing.
• In the CID:
o Define shared purposes
o Examine program alignments
o Did design experiments and committed to documenting the impact.
This was hard because in many higher ed programs there are not many mirrors, magnifying glasses, or windows. Teaching is a very private thing.

5. Collaborative Knowledge building:
Scholars from a range of fields explore the seminar as a signature pedagogy of liberal education. There is a need to go public, otherwise it is not as truly collaborative as it should be.
Ways to do this:
• Publications
• Conference presentations
• Seminars
• Connection to CF website about what other groups are doing – capture and documentation to see what is going on so you can keep the teacher and practice in center view.

So . .. Why the scholarship of teaching and learning
So the work of teaching and learning doesn’t “disappear like dry ice.”
To bring recognition and reward to pedagogical work.

Implications for CPED
• Contested terrain and standards. – everyone is going to bring very different ideas to the table. There are some territory issues.
• Its hard work, moving target, many political issues.
• Needs and helps build communities of practice, you can’t do it by yourself. Intellectual community doesn’t get built by itself.
• Students are wonderful allies and propellers of this work. It engages students. When students are involved new questions get asked, etc.
• Not “a project” but ongoing, iterative routines. It wrongly frames this work as terminal, a periodic episode.
• A tools agenda. – Don’t think about findings in the traditional sense, think about things others can use from your product and what you build along the way to accomplish your project.
• New genres, forms, formats for sharing.
• Needs peer review: who and how?
• Our collective contexts for discussing this are all very different.

Graphic on “The Teaching Commons” about circles of communities all contributing to the collective understanding. (see ppt)

FD: The implications are useful in helping consider the discussions of the differences between EdD and PhD. How do we play the role of collaborator in an environment where there is so much noise and we don’t have the answers? Willis Hawley

Points of group discussion:
➢ We need to take some time to understand the teaching and learning problems and think about where we are in this. “I have been looking at everyone else’s practice, but I haven’t really looked at mine.”
➢ Its more about how we design the program and help them learn, rather than what we teach. That is what we need to look at in the EdD. Program.
➢ What are people’s experiences in their institutions for strategies in dealing with untenured faculty members in dealing with this type of scholarship? Does this type of scholarship count? How do we recognize it? (Shakeshraft)
➢ Washington State provides grants for faculty members engaging in this type of research to help give validity and recognition to it.
➢ This is an issue we need to address in a larger discussion, it is an institutional issue, (Bryant).
➢ USC has differentiated types of professors (clinical and active research, etc.) to recognize different strengths. If you give it only to tenured faculty members, they will intellectualize the problems and they don’t have all of the competence to do it. (Dembo)
➢ Issues with differential values assigned to different types of scholarly work. There is a movement to make different types of scholarship matter – to make practice more important and recognized (Hutchings).
➢ Myron’s USC model is somewhat revolutionary. You have gone from a model where the professor is the center of the universe to the model where the program is the center (Bryant).
➢ We need to be careful as we look at the scholarship of teaching that we document the impact of the learning and the practice. The key issue is how does the design that you have effect impact? Does it have impact that we can document? (Foster)
➢ Backward design here is very key, thinking about impact at the beginning. (Hutchings)
➢ Those who were involved in collaborative practice and research, end up having more to publish because they are beginning with practice based problems. (Marsh)
➢ 97% of Carnegie Scholars got into the practice because they wanted to find colleagues to share their practice problems with. (Hutchings)
➢ Is there a design flaw in the process we are going through here? As we are designing our signature pedagogy, are we spending enough time looking at what we should be designing our signature pedagogy around? (Firestone)
➢ All EdD. Students are fully employed professionals, they are taking on the challenge of bringing in scholarship of teaching and learning in their own school while we are trying to build it at a higher level (Imig).
➢ What are the constituents of our programs looking for? What should we be teaching that we are not? What do they need?
➢ Most of us got into this with k-12 in mind because many of the students are interested in taking the research findings back and putting them into practice to help k-12 kids. Maybe they aren’t using it because we are asking the wrong questions. (Keller)
➢ We have been asking these same questions in teacher professional development for some time now. We have examples of this type of development already we don’t have to start from scratch (Wiseman).
➢ Some students in ed. Leadership have been described as episodic. Many professors could be episodic as well because of the structure of graduate teaching. How are others confronting this? Most educational leadership students are fully employed and cannot give 100%. This is mirrored by the professors the opportunity for collaboration is slim.

Group Discussion Summaries

Small group discussion questions:
➢ How do we get from pilot to next step?
➢ Who should be in the conversation?
➢ How do you draw on the experience of others to guide our changes?

Case study: USC Pilot program using thematic dissertations and differentiating the EdD.
Dembo (USC) – 4 reasons why people don’t change

1. I Can’t change
2. I Don’t want to change
3. I Don’t know how to change
4. I Don’t know what to change

➢ We often think we will have problems because of reason number two.
➢ You are going to work in a team and the team will develop the course. Individual faculty members will not develop individual courses.
➢ People will want to change more if you give them support and guidance to make the changes.
➢ What challenges do we face?
➢ What strategies can we use to tackle them?
➢ Give those who will not change options to go elsewhere. Develop ground rules such as you must work collaboratively. Recruit them individually, put them on the committee. Finding out what the resisters needs and interests are – not what their positions are. They might have various reasons for resisting, but their interests don’t change. (For example, they may worry about losing their area of teaching, but if you appeal to their interests and find a place for them they will cease to resist.)
➢ Important point: Giving the governance committee the authority to develop the degree.
➢ Circumvented the “I wasn’t in on the planning so I don’t know what is going on.” Got around it by going and briefing them and bringing them in and keeping them involved and informed. Change requires outreach.
➢ Should not be just tenure track faculty on the planning committee, clinical faculty should have equal status. However, in many schools there are grad school policies that prohibit clinical faculty from participating fully. Tenured faculty members do not have all of the experience/knowledge necessary for developing the Ed.D program. Need to bring in high quality clinical people.
➢ Thematic dissertation construct is more similar to how people function or work in the real world. Dissertation support center to help with writing issues, mechanical issues of dissertations such as IRB. Paper about USC thematic dissertation on their website – USC Rossier School of Education.

Group Responses:

Group 1:
➢ What sort of coping strategies do faculty come up with to avoid being involved?
➢ Who should be involved?
➢ Thematic dissertation groups.
➢ How to get away from faculty being involved in doing double duty as Ed.D and Ph.D advisors?

Group 2:
➢ Issues about crossing departmental lines, work load, who owns the faculty time? Contributing to programs outside the department may not be valued by everyone.
➢ One strategy to cope with crossing department lines is to develop foundation courses with master syllabi as the course rotates through different departments. Syllabi is shared and developed in a progression.
➢ Discussed governance structures, sometimes more hindrance than help. Finding time to work together – work doesn’t get done unless time is devoted to it.
➢ Discussed different product than traditional dissertation and faculty letting go of traditional structure. Are culminating capstone projects still called dissertations? Does that devalue the Ed.D?

Group 3:
➢ What to do when initial movements don’t go anywhere? Get money on the line.
➢ What to do when moving from an EdD to a PPD and people don’t know what the new degree is and they won’t come to your institution?
➢ What do to when junior faculty is carrying the load of developing the program and are they getting credit and does that mean there is not full buy in for the program?

Group 4:
➢ How do we translate the time commitment for program development into efforts of scholarship? Engage recognized faculty. . . ➢ How do we go about building the infrastructure of the practice oriented degree?
➢ Answers vary from private to state sponsored school.

Group 5:
➢ How to get faculty buy in?
➢ Different cultural norms between departments and between campuses if you have more than one campus.
➢ Many issues are related to lack of communication, need open non-judgmental discussions, require much prep work ahead of time, need to have data in place ahead of time.
➢ Must include internal and external stakeholders, must include vertical stakeholders.
➢ If you can’t make the change either promote or transfer faculty or push for retirement.

Group 6:
➢ Candidate selection, how is it driven, are we missing people that could be successful with proper support.
➢ Important for the graduate students to know expectations up front.
➢ Degree of cognitive load: When people have no prior experience in an area, if they are placed in an unstructured situation where they have no experience, then the cognitive load is untenable. We have to provide the structure and support to help them proceed. We can’t just blame them if they don’t know what to do. We need to focus on the outcomes and then support the process to achieve them.

Day 2

Outcomes from Wednesday, David Imig

What we liked:

1. Pat Hutchings
2. Client centered capstones
3. Ownership of the programs
4. USC success story

What we wanted to know more about
1. Institutional language
2. How do we build consensus for a core
3. More about capstones
4. How to build distinction between PhD and EdD

Where is the educational doctorate headed?, Chris Golde – Assoc. Vice Provost for Graduate Education at Stanford

Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate (CID)
• Critical examination of doctoral education across the country (PhD)
• More of an action project than a research project.
• Underlying assumptions: Undergraduate training varies greatly among disciplines. Very important to work at department level with faculties. No funding for the program. (Which meant the changes departments made were made because they wanted to not because someone else paid for them.)
• Most of the work was done in departments guided by framing questions from Carnegie.
• Worked with 6 disciplines – 5 arts and science, and 1 education (chemistry, math, history, neuroscience, education, and ???)
• Education was very different than the other disciplines, had most in common with neuroscience. Neuroscience starts everyone out with core courses to get everyone on same page, education has not accomplished that yet.
• Education is different with respect to the demographics of the population – older, more diverse, working professionals, and different motives for pursuing advanced degrees. Education has the benefit of working with students with much life experience and sharper sense of motivation with specific reasons.
• There are different goals and outcomes from degrees: practice docs and research docs. The boundaries are very fuzzy and it would benefit to have distinctions be made clear.
• There is some acceptance of the idea that way things are is “because they have always been done that way.” Many in academia do not have concrete answers for “why things are the way they are” and there has been little close examination of why the degree components are the way they are and to consider if there are better ways to do that. Academy is not good at such critical examination.
• There is tremendous value in sharing the sense of struggle and purpose to reach a better goal through such convenings as this. It is an unnatural act to want to share weakness and struggles, but when we do we can begin to grow.
• General lessons that apply across disciplines are:
o Broad based departmental leadership is essential. Must have students involved, must have diversity in experience levels as well.
o Data, evidence, and information are really useful. However, do not spend too much of your time and energy on data and research projects, never getting to the action portion. You do not want to be the dog that turns, and turns, and turns around and never lies down.
o Top level leaders- deans, presidents, provosts, etc. are helpful but not necessary. It is up to you to do the work in the department.
o Sometimes it is easier to ask forgiveness than to get permission. Go forth and do it, there may be no one to stop you and it may pay off in the end when the structure is in place and it is working.
o This is not about the dog and pony show. This is about hard, messy work and that is what we want to see and that is what we are here for.

Questions for Chris Golde
Discussions of the term “Stewards of the Discipline.” It is a helpful framework for beginning discussions and framing ideas and conversations. Working with faculty and students, you don’t want to hand them a ready made list of best practices – that is a conversation killer.
Handing them a provocative idea like “stewards of the discipline” “thriving intellectual community”, what does that look like for us as a means to start a conversation.

Signatures, Laboratories and Professional Practice: Observations, Reflections, commentaries and Misgivings, Lee Shulman, President, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching

Ideas are like fog, they infiltrate. It is not action that moves people, but ideas.
Part of my discomfort yesterday, was that we were spending much too much time talking about the nuts and bolts and not talking about the big ideas. We asked authors of the essays, “What counts as knowledge in your fields?” If you want to grow a new set of stewards of the discipline, what do they need to know and be able to do. If you didn’t already have all of the traditions you have about educating people what would it look like. It is important to push people to look why we are doing this not how and with whom, because how and with whom can easily take over the conversation.

Yesterday's misgivings
• Didn’t hear enough about what you want EdDs to know and be able to do in WHAT settings – its all about settings, how well do you want them to do these things, how long should your program be – as long as it takes. How will you know individually and collectively when they have reached their needed levels?
• What are the arcs of development and learning for your students? How do we see those playing out over the course of a doctorate?
• Didn’t hear a lot of examples of inventive assessments and evaluation. Didn’t hear you doing the really hard work. Do we have a clear enough sense of what we want them to learn, know, do perform that we can assess their learning as they are progressing through instead of waiting until the end?
• Where are educational faculties with sustained programs of collaborative, accountable evidence-based inquiry and action that can serve as the missing settings (the Lab question)? The unit of organization in a chemistry department is the faculty lab. Being a faculty member is defined as having an on-going lab or clinic where the work is being practiced and modeled, so that the next generation will know what to do. Without those settings (either in the institutions, collaboration with off site locations) we can just go home and not have more convenings because we must have those settings to teach. Every other profession or discipline there is some setting which is a context of a lab setting where students and faculty are working together modeling and learning.
• What kinds of learning persist throughout the program? The signature pedagogy is the type of learning that goes on through out the program. If your goal is to develop habits of mind or habits of practice, you don’t develop habits by doing something once. You do them over and over, not from one capstone course or one dissertation.

Where professions and PhDs meet
• Full time over multiple years (except nursing and law) for practice and socialization. Concept of several years of full time study where you are immersed in graduate study and socialization. Our challenge is to turn the necessity of working with students who are already out in the domains of practice from a challenge to a virtue.
• Distinctive settings of real work that are simultaneously settings of learning and action (clinic, hospital, studio, laboratory, field site). Settings are carefully designed and maintained in PhD and professional programs
• There are distinctive professional interactions (lab, research, legal reasoning, collaborative design, rounds and rotations, high levels of accountability)
• Peer and cross-generational pedagogy – learning from each other when its not class time because it is always class time.
• Professions have high stakes internal and external assessments (bar exam, boards).
• Whatever gets done it gets done again and again and again – repetition is conditioning.

Carnegie critiques
• The PhD
o It consists of unexamined purposes, processes and outcomes. We had long since stopped asking why we are doing this. Faculties were running on automatic.
o Intellectual communities – very uneven quality of communities across universities. Some disciplines had ghettoized them and some had carefully constructed and supported them. They are critical to this important engine of development. This is with full time students. Our challenge is how do we create communities of students when you have disparate groups of individuals in various times and places on a program.
o Uneven mentoring – even in lab fields where mentoring should be automatic, expectations were not clear.
o The “new apprenticeship” – the traditional apprenticeship (master, protégé) doesn’t work anymore. The new apprenticeship is not one to one, but one to many, in a variety of settings. It is also both vertical and horizontal and interactive.
o Time to degree – Sometimes we take too long. Why does it take so long? Have we critically examined why it takes so long?
o How good was their preparation for teaching and stewardship.
o The dissertation – totally avoided tackling the discussion on it. What are the alternatives to a dissertation that remain rigorous, relevant?

Carnegie Critiques
• Professional Education
o Uneven treatment of the three apprenticeships and their “habits.” Of all of the professions we studied, the clergy do the best of this.
o Inadequate integration of habits of mind, hand, and heart – excellent development path in the legal preparation area, what about the moral apprenticeship?
o Opaque and flawed assessments, deep problem in many of the professions.
o Ignore or marginalize integrity, justice, and identity, problem across most professions
o “Real settings” uneven, evaporating and endangered. Settings themselves are very uneven (student teaching). There are also limitations of the settings; sometimes they are far too narrow. Sometimes there is a great trade-off between depth and diversity. One of the advantages we have is that students are already in settings of practice, but they are in their own setting and may not learn what they need to know. Settings are both dangerous and disappearing. We are seeing an increase in the use of virtual settings

Metaphor for our CPED work: Clinical Trials in Medicine
• A Consortium of Natural “Experiments”
o Shared general mission with special interests
o Students as self-conscious, intentional agents
o Contrasting clinical intervention programs – doing it in an adaptive way, improving as we go and documenting.
o Commensurable features, lexicon and theory of action- they share much commonality of components, but they recognize individual differences in how they apply them and organize them
o Common formative and summative measures – there has to be a core of measures or you won’t be able to learn from each other.
o Open exchange of findings, problems, and repairs
o Every unit pulls its weight, no free riders or 2 levels

Some features of Professional pedagogies and settings: Labs, field sites, Sims
• Persistent, routine, pervasive, common
o Habits develop from practice and repetition
o Themes, protocols, formats permeate settings
• Apprenticeships of thought, of performances, and values/identities
o Situations capture diverse settings and processes
o Ongoing protocols of scholarship of practice and review
o Multiple generations model and critique
o Public, interactive, accountable, repairable
o Role models, ethical commitments
• Learning to look analytically, critically and with discernment at teaching and learning.
o Across settings
o Diverse students and teachers
o Diverse grades and subject areas
o Diverse purposes and emphases
o Consult, mentor, evaluate, repair
o Uses of technology

Examples of pedagogies: Challenge of distributed students and sites
• Rotations (continuity) and rounds (interactions)
• Case methods and case writing
• Simulations and approximations
• Video models and video performances
• Laboratories and field stations
• “The List” and journal clubs
• Design studios
• Technologies of representation and Practice: Uses of simulation (this field growing dramatically)
• Centrality of assessment: Boards, bar, portfolio

What should be assessed?
• Patterns of engagement (a PPD NSSE)
o Key experiences and opportunities to learn; elements of community, apprenticeship
• Knowledge of habits of thought (CLA – collegiate learning assessment – undergrad learning outcomes tests)
o Measures of critical thinking, decision making, analysis of teaching, learning and organization
• National board? Portfolios and assessments? Could they be exchanged across universities and peer reviewed
• Students as educator agents, collaborators, not objects
• Dashboards for program leaders and candidates; what are the vital signs for individuals and for the program? What would you want to see on your dashboard as indicators of your programs.

So what’s a laboratory for Practice?
• How does that change our conception of faculty role and work?
• Distributed expertise and roles across mentors and candidates
• The centrality of practice settings
• The inadequacy of practice settings: Sampling, conservatism, scholarship, work instead of learning
• The central creative challenge for the PPD

Group Response to Shulman:

What are some of the ingredients of Shulman’s presentation that you would like to incorporate?

• Need to have a big planning group.
• Favoring the USC model.
• Who benefits from making this change?
• Who is the audience?
• Is the degree serving the purpose that it was put in place for?
• Is it serving the practical audience?
• Need two different degrees to serve two different audiences.
• What do we expect people to get out of this?
• Committee representative of all stakeholders – incl students
• What aspects of clinical experience lead to the habits of mind and inquiry, what will lead to the formation of transformational leaders?
• Interested in practical problems that have application to local area schools and can be presented there.

Closing Notes

October 23-25 Nashville, TN – next Convening
Opportunity at Vanderbilt is to see Capstones, core courses, more connections and collaborations, 2nd wave of concerns, administrative issues
One of the groups that will be convened are the deans from our sites at their meeting in Sedona.

Expectations:
Where to next? Proposals, Descriptions, Forming a Base, Documenting
What now needs to be incorporated into your strategic plan?
Laboratories of/for practice
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Capstones
Core courses

All of the regional accreditors are looking at the educational doctorate right now. This is at the center of a major reform movement in higher education in America. There is much energy interest and activity on this, several schools want in.

Outcomes were recorded by Monica Lamar, Duquesne University Graduate Student.