The Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate

The capstone assessment of the IDPEL program at Duquesne University is, at present, the traditional dissertation. The dissertation is expected to reflect learning that occurs in both the "Professional Strands" (combinations of theoretical and practica studies) and the "Research Strands".

The major learning outcome measure in the professional strands is the Practica Checklist. The checklist provides a framework for the program participant and mentor (a practicing educational leader) to gauge the participant's progress in mastery of the identified indicators. Data on the following standards/outcomes are collected once per semester following each professional strand: (a) leadership, values, and ethics, (b) policy and governance, (c) planning, quality, and organizational problem solving, (d) human resources leadership, (e) leadership and district culture, (f) communication and community relations, (g) curriculum design, implementation, and evaluation, and (h) instructional leadership. The Practica Checklist is self-evaluated, evaluated by the mentor and by the advisor in consultation with the participant and the mentor. Additionally, the Practica Checklist is evaluated in the context of the Comprehensive Assessment (see below).

The major learning outcome measure in the research strands is a series of "Talking Papers". A "talking paper" includes a statement about a research topic that is of interest, a description of why the topic is important to the field and why it is of interest to the cohort member, and a preliminary theoretical argument in support of a research question(s) - with support for that theoretical argument using both logic and empirical evidence found in literature. There are three "talking papers" within the research strand. The First Talking Paper is required in the "Research Question Seminar" and is intended to guide early thinking and develop foundation practices prerequisite to developing a Third Talking Paper, but without the level of focus expected in the "final" version. Cohort members will also develop a Second Talking Paper as part of the next summer's requirements, thereby continuing to build and refine concepts and skills in service of a productive, high quality Third Talking Paper by the end of the third year. The Third Talking Paper occurs in the "Dissertation Seminar" which serves as the culminating product that will demonstrate that each cohort member possesses the requisite skills and conceptions to develop subsequently a Dissertation Proposal.

Student performance data are collected also from the following representative earning outcomes:

• Comprehensive Assessment: Students are required to present their answer to the question "How has my participation in IDPEL prepared me for a role as a 21^st Century educational leader?" The presentation reviews key learnings from other program activities, the practica checklist accomplishments, key learnings from program activities. The candidate is also expected to integrate theoretical perspectives and applications to leadership practice into the presentation. The candidate is also required to submit a paper that synthesizes their findings. The end of the presentation is reserved for questions and discussion with the faculty panel.
• Strategic Visioning and Planning Assessment: Assesses a student's ability to analyze the design, content clarity, strategic thinking, evaluation strategies, and attention to local needs, leadership issues, and societal trends of a district's strategic plan. Candidates are required to write a paper and present an overview of the plan and its development, strong and less strong aspects of the content or process of the plan, recommendations that are supported from readings and class discussions.
• Win-Win Negotiations Simulation: Students participate in a "Win-Win Bargaining" Simulation in the Human Resources Leadership strand. Candidates first read selected works about the bargaining approach and then the instructor checks for concept mastery through a question and answer session in small groups and with the entire class. Candidates are then divided into two negotiating teams - the teachers' association and the school board of a fictitious school district (but based upon a "real-life" example). The two teams then participate in a truncated win-win bargaining session until a "handshake" agreement is reached on all contractual items. Candidates are then required to reflect on their theoretical readings and simulation experience in terms of application to the practice of educational leadership. This reflection, along with the instructor's observation of the candidates' performance during the simulation, will serve as the basis for the candidate assessment.
• Program Design Reform: Students demonstrate their ability to design, align, and evaluate a school district's curriculum plan in the Program Design strand. This Program Design Reform assignment involves each Advisory Group developing a program design plan focusing on a reform effort for a school district with an accompanying staff development plan and budget. This plan must have real meaning for one or more of the districts represented by the Advisory Group candidates and must conform to the curriculum portion of the PDE strategic planning requirements. The plan must not represent a plan that has already been completed in an individual's workplace, but could be one that is in its initial stages of preparation. The assignment is based upon each group first determining to whom the RFP will be presented and the areas that is addressed in this specific proposal. This one page outline is included with the final proposal. The proposal is based upon the established criteria as determined by the group.
• Analysis of Leadership Case Study: Students participate in an Analysis of Leadership Case Study in the Leadership and Ethics strand. Candidates are challenged to apply theoretical perspectives to real-world educational leadership dilemmas in this assignment. Working collaboratively in the advisory groups, each group of candidates selects a case study to be provided by the faculty instructor. Members of each Advisory Group first read the assigned case study individually then collectively, and the group prepares answers to focus questions for the group's presentation to the entire class.