Foundational and Professional Coursework (24 Credit Hours)

• EDL 7011: MultiDisciplinary Seminar on Emerging Issues I (3)

• EDL 7012: MultiDisciplinary Seminar on Emerging Issues II (3)

• EDL 7020: Organizational and Systems Theory (3)

• EDL 7025: Leadership in Organizations (3)

• EDL 7035: Curriculum History, Theory, and Practice in Educational Organizations (3)

• EDL 7040: Educational Organizations and Technology (3)

• EDL 7065: Writing for the Professional Educator (3)

• Additional Elective approved by the Ed.D. Program Director (3)

• EDL 7160: Qualitative Research Methods (3) 

• EDL 7165: Applied Quantitative Approaches in Education I (3) 

In addition to EDL 7160 and EDL 7165, students will select two of the courses below:

• EDL 7175: Applied Quantitative Approaches in Education II (3)

• EDL 7530-7549: Special Topics in Doctoral Research (3)

• EDL 7180: Advanced Qualitative Research in Education (3)

Electives are selected in consultation with the Concentration Advisor and/or Ed.D. Program Director. Students must choose from elective courses listed in the Graduate Bulletin or approved by the Ed.D. Program Director. Electives must be graduate-level (5000, 6000, or 7000 levels) and advance the student’s academic goals concerning the student’s concentration and program of study. 

Elective credit hours may be waived for students who have completed an Ed.S. degree from Appalachian State University. 

Students may complete either 3 or 6 credit hours of EDL 7900: Internship. The total number of elective and internship courses should equal 18 credit hours. 

Students enroll in EDL 7999 in the semester following Graduate School approval of the proposal/prospectus, the qualifying exam, and the completion of all coursework. Specific course registration instructions will be provided to the student by the Ed.D. Program Associate or Academic Advisor.

For essential details, see the EDL 7999 section below. 

• Educational Administration

• Higher Education

• Instructional Technology

• Interdisciplinary

• Literacy in Exceptionalities

Students may choose to take 3 or 6 credits of internship, to fulfill doctoral core or concentration elective credits with approval from the Doctoral Advisor.

Faculty Advisor: A Graduate Faculty member who supervises the internship and assigns a final grade.

Site Supervisor: A professional at the site where the student is completing the internship.

A student may complete 3 or 6 credit hours of internship. . Academic credit will be based on a minimum of 40 field placement hours per semester credit hour. Therefore, a 3 credit hour internship will equate to at least 120 hours of student work over the course of the semester. This time includes background reading, work on-site, coordination of meetings, reflective writings, and development of the Internship Portfolio. Internship Proposals must clearly indicate how 120 field placement hours will be completed during the proposed experience.

A student must take a total of 18 hours of electives in the concentration area, depending on the concentration. Students often opt for 6 hours of internship credit when their internship includes duties and opportunities that require two semesters of effort. In such a case, a 3 credit hour internship will be extended at the end of the first semester by the student submitting a new contract for graduate school approval and registration.

Generally, doctoral internships should not occur in settings that overlap with a student’s professional role to avoid conflicts of interest. For example, Site Supervisors should not be in other supervisory relationships with interns, nor vice versa. Internship tasks may be related to an intern’s professional role. However, they may not consist of the intern’s daily duties (i.e., one’s “day job” cannot also be one’s “internship”). If a proposed internship blurs these boundaries and is still considered a worthwhile internship experience, an additional Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) may be required from all parties involved. Students should consult with the Doctoral Advisor for further clarification and approval.

Contract - 2 Weeks Before: Upon receipt of the signed proposal, the Associate Director will generate the Graduate School contract. The student will secure the Site Supervisor’s signature and return the contract to the Associate Director for registration. Failure to submit the contract 2 weeks prior to the start of the semester may result in the internship not being accepted for registration in that academic semester.  

All steps must be followed for the internship to be approved and the contract processed, and Graduate School deadlines are firm. Legally, the contract must be completed and processed by the Graduate School before the internship can begin.  

The Faculty Advisor provides leadership, guidance, collegial support, and advocacy for the intern. They will encourage experiential learning, self-direction, and realistic self-appraisal. The Associate Director will consult with the Faculty Advisor on the status and progress of the internship. After completing the internship, the Faculty Advisor will review the internship portfolio, complete the Internship Portfolio Assessment Form, share it with the Associate Director, and assign the final grade.

The Site Supervisor provides mentorship and expertise at the site of the internship. The Site Supervisor will complete the Internship Evaluation Form at the conclusion of the semester-long internship and share it with the Associate Director. 

Throughout the internship, the student will compile an internship portfolio that reflects their internship experiences. The portfolio will serve to inform the Faculty Advisor of the activities, concerns, and highlights of the internship while providing a record of the intern’s work. 

The portfolio needs to include, but is not limited to:

• A completed internship proposal and contract

• Copies of any materials created during the internship (event flyers, reports, meeting notes, etc.)

• A log of internship activities (i.e., attendance at seminars, meetings, conferences, and hours worked)

• A reflective journal that includes the following components: 

1. Narrative summary of internship activities, outcomes, and obstacles in relation to the student’s learning goals.

2. A critical reflection about the impact of the internship on the student’s professional/leadership capabilities. 

3. An overall self-assessment of the student’s learning and progress during the internship, including suggestions for follow-up activities.

Students need to adhere to the Internship Rubric criteria to create and complete their internship portfolio. Each component of the rubric must be addressed.

Below is information about preparing the internship portfolio, completing required evaluations, and submitting final grades.

Internship Portfolio Submission Guidelines

Students should plan to submit your Internship Portfolio by the last day of classes. The Internship Portfolio should be shared in two places: directly with the faculty advisors for evaluation, and a copy uploaded to the Portfolio assignment in the Doctoral Internship-RCOE AsULearn Projects site. These should be combined into one document.

All submissions should meet the Portfolio requirements listed in the Internship Portfolio section above. 

Students should review the Internship Rubric section in the in the Doctoral Internship-RCOE AsULearn Projects site and the work addresses expectations in the areas of Content Knowledge, Leadership, Research, and Presentation and Format. Students should adhere to the criteria on the internship rubric in the creation and completion of their internship portfolio. Each component of the rubric must be addressed.

End of Semester Evaluation

There are three final evaluation forms to be completed at the end of the semester. 

Faculty Advisors: Complete two evaluations at the links below and submit.

Faculty Internship Supervisor Portfolio Assessment (reflecting on the portfolio itself)

Internship Rubric (reflecting on the entire internship experience)

Students: At the end of the semester, students will share the Site Supervisor Evaluation with their Site Supervisor.

Grades

At the end of the semester, Faculty Advisors should assign the student an internship grade (EDL 7900) in Self Service Log in — Faculty — Final Grades, with the rest of your students. All final grades are due by the university grading deadline. 

S - Satisfactory is the passing grade.

A student must have a dissertation Committee Chair to begin work on their Qualifying Examination (QE). The Chair must be a member of Appalachian’s Current Graduate Faculty. The full three-member dissertation committee will be formalized via the Committee Membership Form at the end of the Proposal/Prospectus stage. At this point, please notify the program when you have identified a faculty member who has agreed to chair your dissertation.

To be eligible to complete the QE, a student must:

• have 30 credit hours of coursework already completed

• be in the final semester of their core coursework

• have a Chair identified and confirmed

The QE must reflect the student’s own independent work. 

• Chairs may not read drafts or edit QE submissions. The final document must stand as an example of the student’s own academic prose. It is appropriate -- and desirable -- for Chairs to provide students with high-level guidance before they begin writing the QE (e.g., giving feedback on a student-generated outline). The Chair is a teacher and source of support and knowledge throughout the dissertation process. While care should be taken to be sure the QE reflects the student’s own work, it can, and should, be guided work. 

• It is appropriate for Appalachian doctoral students to review and revise each other’s QE drafts, especially when intra-cohort writing support relationships have been developed, as such relationships can also support dissertation completion. 

• Students may draw upon work completed for prior courses in their QE preparation. However, such work must be redeveloped and recontextualized to fit the purposes of the QE (i.e., not just “cut-and-paste”).

Question 1: Theoretical Traditions and Frameworks 

How does a substantive theoretical framework or a broad philosophical paradigm inform a significant educational issue? 

• Focusing on a significant issue in education, write a paper that engages with a theory that provides a foundation or framework for your thinking about the issue. Evaluate the theory’s implications for serving as a framework or foundation for understanding and analyzing a research topic.

Address the following: 

• Describe the foundations/origins/history of the theory using major authors and their contributions to the theory

• Explain the key principles and assumptions of the theory

• Critique the theory in relation to educational inquiry

Question 2: The Research/Policy Literature 

What is the historical and current body of scholarship that surrounds a significant issue in education? 

• Focusing on a significant issue in education, review the relevant research or policy literature. Prepare a review of the research design and methods that synthesizes, critiques, and evaluates the historical and current trends in the field. 

Address the following:

• Describe the broad context (legal/political/institutional) of the issue 

• Synthesize the major trends, findings, and debates in the historical/contemporary scholarship

• Critique the strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in the body of scholarship 

• Analyze how the scholarship frames and shapes the issue for educational practitioners, with particular concern for social justice. Provide suggestions and implications for future inquiry.

If the student, in consultation with the Chair, chooses to complete question 3 or 4, then they should only answer one or the other, but not both. 

Question 3: Methodological Review (Broad Review) 

What are the historical and current research methodologies used to produce knowledge about a significant issue in education? 

• Focusing on a significant issue in education, review the relevant research or policy literature. Prepare a review of research design and methods that synthesizes, critiques, and evaluates the historical and current trends in the field. 

Address the following: 

• Synthesize the major methodological trends in the historical/contemporary scholarship

• Compare and critique research questions and knowledge claims connected to key methodologies

• Critique methodological strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in the body of scholarship (e.g. What's missing?)

• Analyze methodological opportunities for future research in the field.

-OR-

Question 4: Methodological Review (Deep Review) 

How does a particular methodology inform (or have the potential for informing) a significant educational issue? 

• Focusing on a particular methodology, write a paper that provides a foundation or framework for producing knowledge about an issue in relation to research questions/goals. 

Address the following: 

• Describe the foundations/origins/history of the methodology, using major authors and their contributions to the methodology. 

• Explain the key principles, assumptions, analytical tasks, and theoretical tenets of the methodology (e.g., purposes, procedures, methods, subjectivity, validity, reliability, generalizability) [specific to qualitative work: subject, data, voice, narrative, meaning making] 

• Synthesize and critique the use of the methodology for knowledge production in education inquiry • Evaluate the methodology’s implications for producing knowledge connected to the significant issue in education that was researched for question 1 or 2 (e.g., What gap might this fill?)

Each question of the QE will be independently scored by each of the two readers using the Qualifying Exam Rubric (see below), who will then share their scores and come together to reach a consensus on the final disposition of the QE. 

Review of the QE will result in one of the following outcomes: 

• If the total of the two QE question averages is 36 or above, the QE passes.

• If the two QE question averages are 35 or below, the student may revise on the first attempt or fail on the second attempt. 

Revisions will be completed according to the schedule set by the Chair and Associate Director and will be resubmitted via ASULearn as above. If the QE is evaluated as failing after the second submission, a meeting will be held with the Ed.D. Program Director and Associate Director to discuss the student’s ability to advance in the Program.

Each question is scored on a Likert scale of 1 - Unsatisfactory, 2 - Satisfactory, or 3 - Exemplary.

Reach:

• BREADTH: Does it include enough relevant literature, be it epistemological, domain-specific, or methodology-specific?

• DEPTH: Does it show an acceptable level of understanding of that literature?

Relevance:

• ARGUMENT: Does it ask urgent and useful questions and make a persuasive case for them?

• DISPOSITION: Does it address the Doctoral Program's values of social justice (e.g., inequity, diversity, gaps of opportunity) and sustainability as they relate?

Integration:

• CONTEXT: Does it show how its assertions are connected to other relevant discourses, whether historic or concurrent?

• ORIGINALITY: Is it adventurous? Does it point to work worth doing? 

Mechanics:

• CLARITY: Are the tone and perspective deliberate and appropriate for doctoral work?

• SYNTAX: Are the word choice, sentence structure, and organization skillful and appropriate for doctoral work?

• FORMAT: Is the use of APA 7th style well-informed and appropriate for doctoral work?

To submit the QE, the student will log on to their ASULearn and click on the ASULearn-Projects tab at the top of the page. There will be a QE Submission (one running document with a unified reference list) link used to submit the actual QE on the Doctoral Program Qualifying Exam page. 

Once accepted (i.e., judged of appropriate length and thoroughness), the QE will be read and graded by the Chair and one of the other two committee members. If other committee members are not yet selected, or other committee members cannot serve, the Associate Director is the default second reader. This process usually takes 3-4 weeks.

The QE should be submitted no later than November 1st for Fall submissions and April 1st for Spring submissions to allow time for grading and final disposition. Summer submissions are discouraged and will only be accepted upon receipt of a prior written agreement of the two readers by the Associate Director. 

The QE should be submitted no later than one academic year after the student finishes coursework. i.e., If a student finishes coursework in the Fall of 2022, the student would need to submit the QE by November 1, 2023. If you are struggling to meet your due date, contact the Associate Director. 

If a student fails to produce a QE that scores 36 or above after two revisions or fails to submit the QE by the appropriate deadline, the student will not be able to advance to the proposal/prospectus stage. At such time the Doctoral Program may recommend academic suspension to the Graduate School. A student has the right to appeal; please reference the Graduate Bulletin on the Graduate School’s website for more information. 

If a student passes the QE, they will begin work on the proposal/prospectus. To maintain enrollment, the student will need to register for EDL 7989-376, which is the section designated for Proposal/Prospectus work. A student is only required to be registered for the Fall and Spring semesters. Enrollment during the Summer semesters is optional but encouraged.