Ed.D. Program Handbook (Summer 2022 – Spring 2027)

Year 3: Comprehensive Examination and Candidacy

Purpose

A comprehensive exam is a doctoral study milestone required by the University of Nebraska Graduate College, which describes it as an “investigation of the breadth of understanding of the field of knowledge of which [a student’s] special subject is a part.” Successful completion of the comprehensive exam qualifies a doctoral student to apply to doctoral candidacy, which in turn qualifies one to propose and ultimately submit a dissertation project for a final oral exam.

The faculty of the Ed.D. program in the Educational Administration department holds the comprehensive exam to be an essential and formative bridge between coursework and a dissertation in practice. While the exam is drafted and submitted after the bulk of coursework has been completed, it draws on program experiences, expectations, and analytical work conducted throughout.

Praxis: Connecting Theory and Practice

As the Ed.D. is an applied credential, we define the relevant field of knowledge for the comprehensive examination to be the knowledge, skills, and dispositions (KSDs) required as educational leaders to lead complex systems-change for equitable futures for students, institutions, and communities. These KSDs are outlined in the program goals section. Therefore, the comprehensive exam serves as a formative evaluation of one’s preparation to lead such change by articulating their own personal and professional positionality along with a scholarly analysis of their improvement praxis relative to their selected problem of practice. In addition, the comprehensive examination serves as an opportunity for critical reflection on one’s improvement praxis to allow for personal and professional growth in regard to change leadership for improvement and equity.

Praxis is defined as the mutually reinforcing process of action informed by reflection and theory with an explicit goal to empower others—especially those marginalized due to socio-political identities and inequitable power differentials—to acquire the critical tools to transform their own lives (Given, 2008). Authentic praxis includes critical reflection on the consequences of such action (Freire, 1970/1993).

Procedure and Timing

Comprehensive exams are due two weeks prior to the first day of classes in the Fall academic term following the completion of EDAD 901-902 sequence. The exam is completed on a students’ own time schedule but requires the completion of a praxis journal and an initial improvement science project that by their nature are developed over time. Thus the comprehensive exam follows the completion of these activities, even as it is an extension of them. It cannot be completed beforehand nor separate from them. Any deviation from this sequence must be negotiated with the advisor and program coordinator and reflect unforeseen challenges, such as job changes, illness, family responsibilities.

Comprehensive exams will be read by the Ed.D. committee and returned to students no later than the end of the first week of the fall semester with written feedback and marks of pass or revisions requested. For revisions requested, students should meet with their advisor to discuss what is needed. Revisions should be resubmitted within two weeks to ensure students remain on track.

Scope

The comprehensive examination builds directly from the Preliminary Improvement Science Project completed during EDAD 901 and 902. For that project, students will articulate a problem of practice and engage in preliminary work on at least one improvement cycle as preparatory work for their dissertation in practice. This preliminary improvement science cycle will form the basis of students’ analysis of their experiences, successes, and needed development of their own improvement praxis in the comprehensive examination.

Students will maintain a praxis journal throughout the 901-902 sequence (although they are encouraged to do so throughout the duration of their studies). The minimum requirement for this journal is a total of 20 half-page entries (single-spaced), crafted on average every 10 to 11 days during the academic terms, starting at the beginning of EDAD 901, for a total of 10 full pages. The praxis journal may be integrated into the coursework but must be maintained regardless of course assignments.

These two components, along with a positionality statement, developed from previous drafts completed in EDAD 900 and EDAD 983, constitute the material on which students will engage in a critical reflection in their comprehensive examination.

Format

The comprehensive exam consists of two major aspects: 1) a self-study of one’s positionality in educational leadership both generally and relative to a selected problem of practice, and 2) an analysis of one’s improvement praxis in preparation to demonstrate readiness to conduct a dissertation in practice and in preparation for sustained improvement praxis upon graduation.

1. Self-study of Positionality Relative to One’s Problem of Practice

In this portion of the exam, drawing on excerpts and insights from their praxis journals and course assignments, students are to explain their social identities as an individual, educator, and leader in relation to their vision for educational improvement, by responding one way or another to the following prompts:

• Describe one or two relevant experiences that shape your views of education, leadership, and your vision for educational improvement.
• Explore where you sit in the nexus of power, oppression, and inequity in educational organizations and endeavors.
• Explain how can you use your role to envision and create more equitable futures.
• Explain how your positionality will shape and inform all stages of your dissertation in practice—from its inception to implementation and interpretation, etc.

2. Analysis of Improvement Praxis

In this portion of the exam, students will engage in a reflective analysis and critique of their own improvement science practice and change leadership, drawing links to applicable theories and scholarly literature. The analysis must speak to students’ praxis so far in conducting a preliminary improvement science project, identifying successes and opportunities for improvement, including areas of action, understanding, and/or tools/processes that need further development. This analysis of improvement praxis much account one way or another the following prompts that map to aims of the program (see: About the Ed.D.):

• How does your praxis cultivate asset-based, participatory, and culturally responsive/sustaining ways of thinking?
• Which improvement science tools (e.g. causal analysis, logic models, theories of change) are salient to guide and evaluate the change you are pursuing?
• What critiques do you have of improvement science models?
• What evidence or propositions do you turn to when envisioning a better, more equitable future in relation to your selected problem of practice (and/or educational endeavors broadly)?
• How does your praxis embody or relate to the values of equity, ethics, and social justice?
• How do you engage in and lead inquiry using multiple types of data to identify, describe, act on, and measure areas for change?
• How do you engage in and lead inquiry in collaboration with multiple stakeholders to empower and support others for success, seek opportunities for change, cultivate trust and relationships for change, and/or develop the will and skill of others to develop a shared vision for a more equitable future and to implement change?
• How have/will you demonstrate(d) curiosity, humility, authenticity, vulnerability, and compassion in your improvement science efforts?
• How do/will you engage in continuous learning in relation to your selected problem of practice and longer-term?

Technical Requirements

The comprehensive exam is submitted as a clearly written, carefully proofread 5,000-7,000 word paper (excluding a title page; reference list; tables, graphs, figures, and charts; and appendices). It should be formatted using the most recent edition of the APA Publication Manual for in-text citations, references, and page formatting (for example, 10-12 point font, double spaced, with a header that contains a running header and page number, among other requirements).

The scope and purpose of the paper should be clearly and succinctly articulated early on in the paper. The paper must be written in a prose style, with limited use of bulleted lists and similar summarizing techniques. Tables, charts, graphs, and figures should be used to present relevant data and should be clear and easy to understand, as well as referred to and described clearly in the text.

Students should provide evidence for their reflections, including the empirical (quantitative and/or qualitative) data and/or conceptual foundations for their thoughts. To that end, tables, charts, and graphs, as well as material presented in the appendices and scholarly and practice-oriented publications should be integrated, referred to, and cited. This necessarily requires insights from one’s praxis journal and initial improvement science project, and so students must incorporate carefully selected—and brief—excerpts that are analyzed in ways that advance the students' explanation of their thinking.

The paper should conclude with actionable steps students will take to further their improvement praxis in their remaining coursework, DiP process, and additional formal and informal professional development activities.

Appendices must include your EDAD 902 paper, your initial and revised positionality statements. Students may include other materials they have created if directly referenced in the body of the paper. A full reference list must be included reflecting deep reading beyond sources assigned in courses.

Evaluation Approach and Criteria

Comprehensive examinations will be evaluated in relation to the prompts, with a focus on reflexivity on improvement praxis and change leadership.

Year 3: Dissertation Proposal and Presentation

Purpose

The Dissertation in Practice (DiP) is a culminating, applied inquiry project that focuses on a problem of educational practice in context. It serves as a summative report and evidence of a reflective, scholarly change and improvement endeavor. Unlike the Ph.D. dissertation that generates original knowledge, fills a gap in the literature, and builds or extends theory, the Ed.D. dissertation generates information that can be used to improve practice in a specific educational setting. Drawing on tenants of improvement science, the DiP should 1) identify an actionable problem of practice that exists in the students’ professional context, 2) develop a theory of action or theory of change based on the students’ professional knowledge and the scholarly literature base, including both empirical and theoretical work, 3) implement and study the change effort systematically, and 4) report findings to local stakeholders, the doctoral committee, and other professionals for whom the change process and outcomes might be relevant. The DiP process unfolds in two parts: the proposal and the dissertation itself. Each portion requires a written component and a presentation.

Students will work closely with their chairs to develop their proposal and dissertation, including regular submission of drafts for feedback, prior to presentation and feedback from the whole committee.

The dissertation proposal is essentially a contract between the student and committee as to what and how the student’s inquiry project will be undertaken. Students need to demonstrate their readiness to engage in that work by demonstrating 1) a description of the problem of practices, including the scope and scale of the problem and the context in which it is occurring; 2) knowledge of empirical research and relevant theories; 3) development of a theory of the problem drawing from professional and research knowledge; 4) creation of a theory of action/theory of change that outlines causal relationships, levers for change, and pathways to improvement; and 5) development of an inquiry plan. Each element is further explained below.

• Description of the problem of practice:
• Discussion of the scope and scale of who is impacted, how many are impacted, and in what setting/ context;
• Explanation of the significance and urgency for practice and student outcomes, including how the problem is strategically connected to larger organizational goals and vision;
• Description of the current indicators/symptoms of the problem that you wish to change, including relevant data and metrics. Should include references to a needs assessment, equity audit, or other sources data sources to be included in the appendices.
• Focused literature review of the professional knowledge base
• What do we know about the problem of practice in the professional literature? What are the relevant inputs and outcomes? In what contexts has this professional knowledge been created?
• What social scientific perspectives and theories have been brought to bear on this priority?
• What has been tried before? How successful were the interventions?
• What aspect(s) of this research do you find most compelling, persuasive, and legitimate? Why?
• Are there apparent inconsistencies, indicators of selectivity and bias, and gaps?
• How would you sum up the state of knowledge about this problem of practice? What are the main needs, problems, opportunities, assets, and gaps?
• Theory of the problem: Based on your review of the literature, your previous improvement efforts, local data, and your professional experience: describe the antecedents, correlates, causes, and consequences? Should include a root cause analysis.
• Theory of action: Based on your literature review, your previous improvement efforts, and your professional experience develop a theory of action aimed at creating the desired change. Develop a logic model of pathways for change.
• Inquiry plan: Based on your theory of action, develop an interactive Plan-Do-Study-Act process to implement their theory of action, including:
• Design protocols for leading plan development
• Necessary resources
• Measurement plan including, but not limited to, short-term measures, proximal and distal measures, process measures, balancing measures. Discussion of reliability and validity of measures and other data collection and analysis procedures
• Protocols for using data to improve practices
• Expected products of the project (protocols, processes, curriculum, professional development activities, etc.)

These elements can and should build from students’ coursework. However, they should be revised and appropriately cited (e.g. self-citation of prior data analysis written in a paper). This proposal should be approximately 30 pages in length, along with relevant appendices (e.g. protocols, timelines). This means writing should be tightly focused on their problem of practice and as concisely as possible. Documents should be crafted in clear, professional prose and formatted using APA.

Proposal Timing and Process

Proposal presentation will be scheduled during the three week January term, following students’ comprehensive examinations. A draft will be due to advisers by the last week of fall term. The purpose of having a set time for proposal and dissertation presentations is three-fold: 1) to provide opportunities for Ed.D. students to come together as a community of practice to support and celebrate each other’s work; 2) to provide opportunities for other cohorts to learn from presentations by demystifying and making public an often private and isolating process; and 3) to provide a concrete deadline to support students in staying on track.

However, we recognize that life happens and that context-based inquiry does not always go as planned. Therefore, alternative presentation venues and dates can be arranged in consultation with the students’ committee.

Evaluation Criteria

Dissertation proposals will be evaluated in relation to the elements described above, with a focus on a clear description of the problem of practice, the theory of action development, and feasibility of proposed project.