




































Microsoft Word - 1. Barker-Dec 2016.docx


Vol. 5, No. 1, Dec 2016, pp. ?-?   
 
 
 
 
Leadership Development of Doctoral Students in a Carnegie Project on the Education 
Doctorate Affiliated Ed.D. Program 
Nan Barker and Daniel R. Ayala 
California State University, Fresno 
 
 

Abstract 
 

Educational practitioners in the 21st century must respond to the availability of a wide 

array of data relating to student outcomes and student achievement. To make effective use of this 

data as well as be able to respond to the growing needs of the field, educational practitioners 

must be able to apply the knowledge they gain in the graduate preparation programs. In this 

article, the authors reflect on the role of a signature pedagogy grounded on inquiry-based 

learning in their leadership development, and how an ongoing emphasis on action research 

throughout their doctoral program was invaluable in their professional and academic growth. As 

a result, the authors recommend that action research should strongly supplement traditional, 

theory-driven graduate pedagogy in education. 

 

  



4	
     N. Barker & D. Ayala	
  
 

Introduction 
Effective educational leadership, regardless of the individual practitioner’s setting, 

requires an ongoing focus on improving student learning outcomes while adjusting to the 
demands of national policy and legislation at regional and local levels. More fundamentally, 
leadership involves an understanding of the indirect and decentralized nature of relationships 
within educational organizations, as well as the relationships between stakeholders in the overall 
system (Bolman & Deal, 2008). As the goal of improving student achievement is adopted 
throughout all levels of public education, there is a need for effective leadership that can address 
national and state priorities (Wahlstrom, 2008). To this end, Leithwood (2012) found that 
collective leadership can exert its influence through reciprocal, highly interactive relationships 
among individuals working within educational organizations, creating greater capacity and 
powerful motivation to meet ever more demanding goals. 

With the rising general awareness of education as a driving force of national economic 
growth and competitiveness (Zumeta, Breneman, Callan, & Finney, 2012), the need for 
meaningful articulation between all levels of publicly funded education is of increasing 
importance. Irrespective of historical understandings of the distinct responsibilities of each level 
of the education system, the interdependence of these structures is increasingly apparent as 
changes in one component of the system influence other segments. Publicly funded education is 
an example of systemic complexity that will require change and enhanced coordination of the 
processes among the interrelated organizations (Senge, 2006). 

The collection and analysis of longitudinal student data in K-16 systems is a primary 
example of meaningful application of systems level leadership and a representation of dynamic 
complexity within public education. Leaders in preschool through twelfth grade (P-12) systems, 
as well as systems of public higher education, frequently have a desire to answer questions about 
individual or aggregate student populations (Mandinach & Gummer, 2015). This use of 
longitudinal data to address larger questions of system performance has brought into question the 
very notion of separate educational structures, which have historically been based on nothing 
more than the age of students. A growing body of evidence suggests that the process of 
achieving long-term learning outcomes is complex and not confined to specific age categories 
(Fullan, 2013). 

Given the positive impact that education has on the increasingly knowledge-centered 
economies of the 21st century (Tucker, 2011), institutional and state policy that is responsive to 
societal change is necessary in order to ensure the relevance and service of education. The model 
of publicly supported colleges and universities, which function virtually autonomously in regards 
to the development of curriculum, instruction, and student outcomes, has had the unintended 
consequence of isolating these institutions from wider reaching P-12 educational systems. As a 
result, promising practices developed in one system very rarely cross into another system.  It is 
the task of contemporary leadership programs to bring practitioners together, and emphasize the 
consistent application of action research across publicly-funded education, with a goal of 
increasing the scholarship of teaching and learning and improving student outcomes (Darling-
Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Shulman, 2005). 

Doctoral programs in educational leadership occupy a unique position in providing a 
shared vision of state and national educational needs. With the support of the Carnegie Project on 
the Education Doctorate (CPED) initiative to develop professional practitioners committed to 
improving student outcomes (Perry & Imig, 2010), doctoral programs in educational leadership 
have strengthened the degree with a greater focus on developing practitioners that can blend 



 Doctoral Student Leadership    5 
 

theory with effective practice (Shulman, Golde, Bueschel, & Garabedian, 2006).  By preparing 
doctoral students, working in both P-12 and higher education, with the knowledge, analytical 
tools, and organizational awareness necessary for reform, the intended goal is for these leaders to 
serve as catalysts for effective change in the organizations that characterize contemporary 
education (Slater, Brown-Welty, Cohn, & Rodriguez, 2009). 

In recognition of the many goals of leadership preparation programs, CPED provides 
guidelines and best practices as it relates to the development and implementation of graduate 
programs serving this purpose. To accomplish this, CPED recommends that leadership 
preparation program adopt one of several signature pedagogies, all of which are grounded on 
inquiry-based learning and action research, to assist practitioners in effective reform. 

The purpose of this paper is to reflect and analyze how the particular signature pedagogy 
of the Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership at Fresno State (DPELFS), embedded 
fieldwork, influenced the leadership development and preparation of the authors as professional 
practitioners. The analysis will be framed by Senge’s open systems theory and Leithwood’s 
(2012) framework for evaluating effective leadership in the P-12 system. 

 
The Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership at Fresno State 

The designers of DPELFS integrated the foundations of the CPED initiative into the 
program curriculum. DPELFS leaders sought to prepare doctoral students for service as 
practitioners who can carry out local research and evaluation that will ultimately shape practice 
at all levels of the educational system. This close integration of scholarship with practice in both 
P-12 and higher education settings requires the practitioner to be capable of high levels of 
organizational awareness in addition to being able to carry out multi-dimensional problem 
solving (Shulman et al., 2006). 

CPED and its member institutions established several emphases for its member 
institutions’ graduate programs, “(a) the scholarship  of teaching, (b) the identification of a 
signature pedagogy, (c) the creation of laboratories of practice that undertake best evidence 
analyses, and (d) the development of new capstone experiences in which Ed.D. candidates 
demonstrate their proficiencies in scholarship.” (Browne-Ferrigno & McEldowney Jensen, 2012, 
p. 408.) These guidelines impact the attitudes and behaviors of the individuals working within 
the doctoral program and become the foundation of every decision that is made. Furthermore, 
these guidelines ensure a consistent basis for pedagogy, student assessment, and evaluation, all 
of which tie into concrete behaviors that are identifiable in every graduate. 

DPELFS has the pedagogical orientation and curriculum design of coursework based on 
the principles of inquiry-based learning, a primarily student-driven process. Inquiry-based 
learning can be characterized by three principal components: (1) problem-based learning, (2) the 
integration of contextualized field studies and case studies into the general curriculum, and (3) a 
research-based approach to developing analytical framework and conducting educational 
evaluation (Donovan, Bransford, & Pellegrino, 2000).   

The greatest strength of this pedagogical orientation is in its emphasis on having learners 
identify organizational problems, develop research questions, and determine the optimal means 
by which to address those questions. A deeper element to signature pedagogies is that they 
address and redefine some of the traditional assumptions about how to convey knowledge of the 
profession to learners.  The third and final dimension of signature pedagogies is the underlying 
expectations of attitudes professionals should hold as norms and the convictions one should act 
upon (Donovan et al., 2000). 



6	
     N. Barker & D. Ayala	
  
 

The adopted signature pedagogy of DPELFS, embedded fieldwork, allows doctoral 
students to design studies relating to school practice and theory, as well as apply collaborative 
effort in group projects intended to develop individual leadership skills (Slater, Brown-Welty, 
Cohn, & Rodriguez, 2009).  The goal is to develop highly skilled scholar-practitioners to effect 
reform in their local educational contexts by creating a bridge from the theoretical knowledge 
gained through lecture to its application in the field. As a result of a programmatic focus on 
applied research, students are able to immediately enact and disseminate their findings to 
improve the effectiveness of their current educational environment; thus, embedded fieldwork 
distinguishes itself from other, more theoretically-oriented pedagogical strategies through the 
immediacy of its application in the field (Golde, 2007). 

According to their work examining graduate education in relation to embedded fieldwork, 
Sappington, Baker, Gardner, and Pacha (2010) found that the application of the content of 
coursework outside of the classroom setting allowed doctoral students to explore a problem 
holistically. Doctoral students participating in action research are able to return to their local 
contexts with knowledge of an approach that is necessary for catalyzing positive reform. As part 
of DPELFS coursework, doctoral students are given the opportunity to work with local 
educational systems to conduct evaluations in a client-evaluator format. Leaders of local 
organizations contact DPELFS faculty with organizational problems they are having that could 
use a research-based analytical framework to determine solutions. Students are tasked with 
developing an evaluative framework, collecting data, and delivering an evaluation to 
stakeholders. 

These projects support the programmatic goals for doctoral students to develop visionary 
leadership skills to execute concrete educational reform focused on instructional practices and 
policies, curriculum, campus cultures, school-community relations, and home and school 
learning environments. This includes developing the capacity within practitioners to build 
cooperative teams of practitioners and researchers in schools, as well as the research capabilities 
necessary for the implementation of educational policy and practices that are based on the 
effective use of data (Mandinach & Gummer, 2015). 

 
Doctoral Student Experiences with Projects Connected to Course Curriculum 

The authors participated in three embedded fieldwork projects as part of the DPELFS 
implementation of its signature pedagogy. Each project was designed to apply the theoretical 
learning from a specific course to address a problem of practice in an educational setting with 
which they were not directly involved. Each embedded fieldwork assignment required 
recommendations to the client for action. In the process of analyzing the problem and developing 
a literature review, the team learned to prioritize possible actions based on principles of change 
leadership. Recognizing opportunities for action that would bring about immediate change was a 
skill that developed over the course of several fieldwork projects. 

The first project was assigned in a second semester course, Conceptual Curriculum 
Perspectives for Educational Leadership, and focused on the philosophical and cognitive skills 
necessary to analyze curriculum theory and practice across educational systems. The purpose of 
the project was to examine curriculum from an external organization and evaluate progress 
relative to the criteria for meeting programmatic excellence. Research, data collection, and 
analysis using appropriate design methods and instruments were all essential elements of the 
project. Central elements of the course included in the project were system-wide educational 



 Doctoral Student Leadership    7 
 

reform, data-driven decision-making, school and campus cultures, collaborative management, 
and student development and learning. 

The second project was conducted during a third term course, Educational Reform. The 
purpose of the course was to provide doctoral students with a broad perspective on change in 
education settings in the context of organizational theory, structure, and culture. Change 
leadership was emphasized in the course. The project required a doctoral student team to meet 
with a client to discuss the client’s reform project. The team then researched comparable reform 
implementations, developed recommended strategies to effect the reform, and provided the client 
with an abbreviated literature review and an executive summary. 

The third project was a program review of data analytics infrastructure preparedness and 
use at the university campus, assigned in a fourth term course, Educational Evaluation, 
Assessment, and Planning. The team met with university administrators to define the scope of 
the project and determine project goals. Interviews of leaders on the local campus, as well as 
participation in a group meeting of leaders from two other campuses who were ahead in their 
deployment of data analytics infrastructure and software, supplied the data for the project.  

Other doctoral candidates in the cohort selected projects that were varied in topic, scope, 
and type of client (see Figure 1).  Teams were formed based on interest in the projects suggested 
by the faculty.  Each project required an extensive review of the literature, an in-depth written 
summary of the project for the professor, an abbreviated written report for the client, and a 
meeting with the client to discuss the findings and recommendations. By performing each of 
these tasks, the students were able to gain an organizational perspective on the problems of 
practice in educational environments, which is a necessary precursor to effective leadership. 
 
Figure 1. Sample Embedded Fieldwork Projects 
 

Course Title Project Title Client 

Conceptual 
Curriculum 

Perspectives for 
Educational 
Leadership 

Examination of a Curriculum or Course 
Design: In-Depth Case Study of an External 
Organization 

Public High School 

English 9 AB Curriculum Review Suburban PK-12 School 
District 

An Analysis of Curriculum Alignment 
Between the First-Year Writing Program 
and General Education Courses in the Social 
Sciences 

University: Fresno State 

Educational Reform Development of a Reform Plan to Increase 
the Diversity of an Educational Law Firm 

Educational Law Firm 

El Dorado Park to Fresno State: Creating an 
Educational Pipeline 

Charter High School 

The International Student Experience at 
Fresno State 

University President 



8	
     N. Barker & D. Ayala	
  
 

Educational 
Evaluation, 

Assessment, and 
Planning 

Evaluation of the Total Educational Systems 
Support (TESS) 

Rural PK-12 School 
District 

Examination of Key Components of the 
English Language Learner Programs: In-
Depth Case Study of Merced County 
Schools 

Two Rural Elementary 
School Districts 

Model Character Education Programs in 
Secondary Settings 

Bonner Center at Fresno 
State 

Progressing Toward Analytic Maturity: A 
Road Map for Fresno State 

University: Fresno State 

 
Becoming Change Agents as Educational Leaders 

Leithwood (2012) developed a comprehensive framework for evaluating effective 
leadership within the context of the school site as well as at the district level. While this 
framework was originally intended to describe P-12 systems, it has value in the assessment of 
leadership effectiveness in higher education. The DPELFS program goal of developing visionary 
leaders who can implement change is supported by the basic premises of the model for 
evaluating leadership skills, particularly through assessment of what Leithwood identifies as one 
of the more prominent means by which a leader can be assessed, the extent to which a leader can 
demonstrate what is termed problem-solving expertise. 
 This problem-solving expertise is a set of skills that allows an individual to identify 
structural challenges and problems and address them with solutions that are supported by 
research. According to Leithwood (2012), such a problem is narrowly defined as when, “(a) 
there is a gap between some current state of affairs and a preferred future state of affairs and (b) 
the means required to reduce the gap requires thought” (p. 44). Leithwood further identified three 
types of unstructured problems that require solutions and approaches beyond conventional 
approaches: those that are historical and persistent, those that are unique, and those that can be 
addressed with recent developments in research. The expertise in solving problems is not based 
solely on intellectual skills, but on leadership that can address the particular situation. 
Leithwood’s framework identifies the personal resources that effective leaders develop in three 
dimensions: cognitive, social, and psychological.   

According to this framework, the most important characteristics to develop in individuals 
who are training to be future educational leaders are the skills necessary to envision a better 
future, understand a given context, and bridge the present with that desired future. As a result of 
the fieldwork projects, DPELFS students developed their ability to identify problems in 
educational practice and to apply their skills and knowledge in these external problems to 
exercise and gain expertise in practice. Part of the process involves identifying functional or 
organizational constraints and creating solution processes to address and overcome them.   

 
Doctoral Student Responses 

After completing the doctoral program, the authors reflected on their leadership learning 
through embedded fieldwork utilizing the components of the cognitive personal resources 
framework designed by Leithwood (2012).  The greatest leadership learning came from the 
interactions with clients and the application of theory to unstructured problems facing the clients. 



 Doctoral Student Leadership    9 
 

With each project, the team’s understanding of the scope of possible outcomes from the action 
research increased.  The topics of the projects were not similar; however, the doctoral program 
team applied leadership skills learned in previous projects to each new project. 

The doctoral student team deduced the principles and values of the clients through 
interviews and reviews of documents provided by the client and available through organization 
web sites. In the period of time for the projects, the team found vastly different perceptions 
among stakeholders in the issues studied for two of the three projects.  In contrast, the client for 
one of the projects was a university president who clearly articulated his principles and values 
related to the project at the initial meeting. 

Each embedded field work project required collaboration among doctoral students 
working together on teams. Although each team member brought individual strengths to the 
project, no one member possessed all of the leadership characteristics needed to complete the 
project.  Working in stressful situations where there is not a clear, known route to solve the 
problems forced the doctoral students to learn to respect the individual work styles of their peers 
and to contribute their strengths and interests to the overall project.  Learning to control 
emotional responses to problems in the group work environment is a leadership skill that was 
greatly needed.  Strong emotional responses to a problem and what was required to solve it 
limited flexibility in thinking about ways to solve the problem. 

 
Summary of Reflections 

Learning to work within constraints and envisioning plausible leadership actions in 
circumstances with multiple, complex issues were the most difficult aspect of the embedded 
fieldwork projects. However, this was a central feature of the pedagogy of the doctoral program, 
and the one that had the longest-lasting impacts on student learning. 

The insight and guidance of faculty was foundational to the success of the team projects.  
Faculty mentoring through both successful outcomes and unsuccessful components of the 
projects provided valuable learning for the team. Preparing the presentations for clients required 
in-depth study of the problem with an extensive literature review for each project, developing a 
plan for data collection and analysis, and presenting ideas for solutions through 
recommendations for the client.  This process reinforced the importance of leaders understanding 
problems from many different perspectives before attempting to carry out a solution. 
 Effective teaching practices, at any level of education and in any subject matter, rely 
upon ongoing reinforcement of learning such that it becomes cemented in long-term practice. In 
the case of DPELFS and its student learning outcomes, it was clear that leadership skills were 
developed through the processes of the curriculum and embedded fieldwork.  
 

Conclusion 
In conclusion, the embedded fieldwork projects in the doctoral program provided 

learning that incorporated theory and practice.  The variety in the format of the projects and the 
stated purpose of the projects allowed for both broad learning and learning specific to individual 
client’s needs.  The strongest leadership learning came from presenting the results of the 
fieldwork projects to the clients.  As graduate students presenting a well-prepared project to top 
administrators on the campus, the team gained a vision of themselves as future leaders. 
Participating in discussions regarding the recommendations presented gave doctoral students 
feedback about the feasibility of implementing suggestions.   



10	
     N. Barker & D. Ayala	
  
 

As a result of these experiences, the authors strongly recommend that graduate pedagogy 
in educational leadership should supplement traditional instruction with action research. The 
application of theoretical learning to everyday problems faced by leaders in the field of education 
provided the authors with robust learning and the ability to apply these experiences to future 
problem as leaders in the educational system. 
  



 Doctoral Student Leadership    11 
 

References 
 

Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership. (4th 

ed.) San Francisco, CA: Wiley. 

Browne-Ferrigno, T., & McEldowney Jensen, J. (2012). Preparing Ed.D. students to conduct 

group dissertations. Innovative Higher Education, 37, 407-421. 

Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What 

Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, An Imprint 

of Wiley. 

Donovan, M. S., Bransford, J. D., & Pellegrino, J. W. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: 

Bridging research and practice. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

Fullan, M. (2013). Great to excellent: Launching the next stage of Ontario’s education reform. 

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/reports/FullanReport_EN_07.pdf 

Golde, C. M. (2007). Signature pedagogies in doctoral education: Are they adaptable for the 

preparation of education researchers? Educational Researcher, 36(6), 344-351. 

doi:10.3102/0013189X07308301 

Leithwood, K. (2012). The Ontario leadership framework 2012. Retrieved from the Institute for 

Education Leadership website: 

http://iel.immix.ca/storage/6/1345688978/Final_Research_Report_-_EN.pdf 

Mandinach, E., & Gummer, E. (2015). Data-driven decision making: Components of the 

enculturation of data use in education. Teachers College Record, 117(4), 1-8. 

Perry, J. A., & Imig, D. G. (2010). Final report: The Carnegie Project on the Education 

Doctorate, 2007-2010. Retrieved from the Carnegie Project website: 

http://www.cpedinitiative.org /files/final_report_2010.doc 



12	
     N. Barker & D. Ayala	
  
 

Sappington, N., Baker, P. J., Gardner, D., & Pacha, J. (2010). A signature pedagogy for 

leadership education: Preparing principals through participatory action research. 

Planning and Changing, 41(3), 249-273. 

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New 

York: Doubleday. 

Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52-59. 

Shulman, L., Golde, C., Bueschel, A. & Garabedian, K.  (2006). Reclaiming education’s 

doctorates: A critique and a proposal. Educational Researcher 35(3), 25-32. 

Slater, C., Brown-Welty, S., Cohn, K., & Rodriguez, J. (2009). Signature pedagogy in California 

State University educational doctorates. CAPEA Education Leadership and 

Administration, 21, 87-99. 

Tucker, M. (2011).Standing on the shoulders of giants: An American agenda for education 

reform. Washington, D.C.: National Center on Education and the Economy. 

Wahlstrom, K. L. (2008). Leadership and learning: What these articles tell us. 

EducationalAdministration Quarterly (43), 593-597. 

Zumeta, W., Breneman, D. Callan, P., & Finney, J. (2012). Financing American higher 

education in the era of globalization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. 

 


	bkPaperTitl
	bkAuthorAffil
	bkAuthor
	bkAbstract

