CPED@DUQUESNE

1
CPED_at_DUQUESNE
Accounting, Assessment, Evaluation We seek to
account for the efficacy of our designs through
high-yield assessments that inform principled
evaluation. High-yield assessments are formative
they inform the learning plans of doctoral
students and they inform the design cycles by
which we continuously improve doctoral
preparation. Principled evaluation means being
explicit about what is assessed, why it is
assessed, and how it is assessed. Evaluation is
conceived as the process of placing value,
allowing us to interrogate what, how, and why we
place value. As we continue to argue and test
proposals, we intend to use design-based research
to frame our dialogue and to test the efficacy of
our designs. The design-based research framework
we have adopted requires that we account for our
designs to prepare stewards for the profession of
education. Therefore, the empirical and
theoretical antecedents and consequences of
designs must be interrogated so that we can
improve continuously the learning environments
that contribute to the formation of stewards of
educational practice (and, with regard to a new
CID-inspired Ph.D. program, the inter-discipline
of learning science and policy). It is a matter
of heeding the pedagogical imperative.
According to the Council of Graduate Schools,
in their Task Force Report of the Professional
Doctorate (2007), a professional doctoral
degree should represent preparation for the
potential transformation of that field of
professional practice, just as the Ph.D.
represents preparation for the potential
transformation of the basic knowledge in a
discipline. (p.6). Consequently, we are
interrogating our design proposals and prototypes
for the doctoral preparation of educational
leaders against the criterion the potential to
transform the field of educational leadership.
And, as we do so, we are considering how such a
criterion might contribute to a dialogic
arguments regarding the standards that can be
used to render accounts of both doctoral
preparation for and the professional practice of
educational leadership. Bibliography Barab, S.
Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research
Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of
the Learning Science, 13 (1), 1-14. Bell, P.
(2004). On the theoretical breadth of
design-based research in education. Educational
Psychologist, 39 (4), 243-253. Brown, A. L.
(1992). Design experiments Theoretical and
methodological challenges in creating complex
invitations in classroom settings. The Journal of
the Learning Sciences, 2 (2), 141-178. Cobb, P.,
Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., Schauble,
L. (2003). Design experiments in educational
research. Educational Researcher, 32 (1), 9-24.
Council of Graduate Schools. (2007). Task force
report on the professional doctorate.
Washington, D.C. Author. Design-Based Research
Collective. (2003). Design-based research An
emerging paradigm for educational inquiry.
Educational Researcher, 32 (1), 5 -9. diSessa,
A.A. Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation
and the role of theory in design experiments.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, (1),
77-103 McCown, R., Miller, J.A., Lamar, M.
Bleil, J. (2007). Considering the Need for a
Signature Pedagogy. CPED_at_Duquesne Working Paper
(WP07-06-14. Pittsburgh Duquesne
University. McCown, R., Miller, J.A., Schreiber,
J.B., Welch, O.M. (2007). Scholarship for
Schools and Design-Based Research Framing the
Argument for CPED_at_Duquesne. CPED_at_Duquesne Working
Paper (WP07-10-01). Pittsburgh Duquesne
University. McCown, R., Miller, P., Moss, C.M.,
Henderson, J.E., Hopson, R.K. (2007). Preparing
Stewards of Educational Leadership Capstone
Assessments for the Ed.D. Versus the Ph.D.
CPED_at_Duquesne Working Paper (WP07-11-16).
Pittsburgh Duquesne University. Golde, C.M.
(2007). Signature pedagogies in doctoral
education Re they adaptable for the preparation
of educational researchers? Educational
Researcher, 36 (6), 344-351. Shulman, L. S.
(2005). Signature pedagogies in the disciplines.
Daedalus, 134, 3, 52-59. Shulman, L.S. (2007).
Counting and recounting Assessment and the quest
for accountability. Change, January/February,
20-25.
Proposals and Prototypes The proposals and
prototypes represented below derive from design
efforts focused by our pilot initiative the
redesign of our professional doctorate in
educational leadership (see note immediately
below), the design of a CID-inspired research
doctorate, and the development of a design-based
research protocol to document and account for the
CPED_at_Duquesne project. Note Our current
professional doctorate in educational leadership
admits a cohort of students once every three
years. We expect to admit students to the newly
designed professional doctorate in educational
leadership in the Summer or Fall of 2011. Core /
Foundation / Inquiry
Introduction Duquesne's engagement in CPED is
framed by the School of Education's identity,
particularly "Scholarship for Schools." Within
that frame, the work of designing and testing
learning environments for its doctoral programs
is focused through the lens of design-based
research. As a consequence of the design-based
research approach, we are collecting data to
track the development of a "culture of dialogic
argument" as a way of building intellectual
community. The design-based research approach and
the culture of dialogic argument it supports have
connected CPED pilot efforts in educational
leadership to other design initiatives with
partners from the University Council for
Educational Administration and the Pittsburgh
Emerging Leadership Academy, a program of the
Pittsburgh Public Schools to develop urban
principals. Design-Based Research
Programmatic Goal To form, in a culture of dialogic argument, a community comprising stewards of education. To form, in a culture of dialogic argument, a community comprising stewards of education. To form, in a culture of dialogic argument, a community comprising stewards of education. To form, in a culture of dialogic argument, a community comprising stewards of education. To form, in a culture of dialogic argument, a community comprising stewards of education. To form, in a culture of dialogic argument, a community comprising stewards of education.

Core Learning Experiences SoTL Leadership Imperative Social Justice Design Inquiry SoTL Leadership Imperative Social Justice Design Inquiry SoTL Leadership Imperative Social Justice Design Inquiry SoTL Leadership Imperative Social Justice Design Inquiry SoTL Leadership Imperative Social Justice Design Inquiry SoTL Leadership Imperative Social Justice Design Inquiry

Foundational Capacities Design Accountability Advocacy Design Accountability Advocacy Design Accountability Advocacy Design Accountability Advocacy Design Accountability Advocacy Design Accountability Advocacy
Design Inquiry is proposed as one of the core
learning experiences. Other inquiry learning
experiences requiring the use of quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed methods are presumed to
build on the framework established by design
inquiry. Internship / Laboratories of Practice
Learning Venues Mentored Residency Classrooms Departments Schools Professional Development Committees Central Office School Board Community Government
The figure above represents the general
framework with which we are attempting to account
for our CPED design efforts. The theoretical and
empirical antecedents of a design proposal are
interrogated until, through dialogue, a consensus
argument for the design emerges. The proposal
then becomes a prototype that is tested the data
that inform theoretical and empirical
consequences of the design are interrogated in
order to improve the prototype for the next cycle
of testing. In this way, we seek to
operationalize continuous improvement of our
doctoral program in educational leadership and,
eventually, all doctoral programs in the School
of Education. At present, proposals and
prototypes are focused on our pilot initiative
the formation of stewards of educational
leadership practice as well as those who would
steward the interdisciplinary connection between
learning science and policy. The following table
represents some of the design proposals and
prototypes that are, as of this writing, being
argued and tested with regard to core, inquiry,
laboratories of practice, and capstone learning
opportunities. You will note that inquiry is
included as a core learning opportunity
andbecause capstones will be successively
approximated throughout the programthat examples
of those successive approximations are included
as signature demonstrations of learning.
Mentored Residency is a prototype being tested
in the context of the Pittsburgh Emerging
Leadership Academy, a program to prepare urban
principals in the Pittsburgh Public Schools.
Other venues might be subsumed within a residency.
Capstone Our proposals and prototypes in this
area assume that signature pedagogy starts with
assessment. Additionally, signature
demonstrations of learning are assumed to be
successive approximations of capstone
demonstrations of learning. Some signature
demonstrations are assumed to contribute to other
signature demonstrations. Finally, we do not
assume a one-to-one correspondence between the
signature and capstone demonstrations listed
below.
Signature Demonstrations of Learning Capstone Demonstrations of Learning
equity audits stewardship formation journal biographical cases design inquiry log argument summaries group briefings presentations proposals Design-Based Research Report Educational Platform Briefing(s) Grant Proposal Legislative Proposal/White Paper Professional Development Plan Community Development Plan Professional Articles Community Publications
Includes an accountability system and an
advocacy agenda that will serve as the foundation
for the other capstone demonstrations of learning
addressed to a variety of audiences. It is likely
that some capstones (e.g., a hosted briefing)
will be collaborative demonstrations.