Innovative Leadership Preparation: Modeling the Use of Improvement Science in an Educational Leadership Doctoral Program

• In Event: Integrating Improvement Science Into Leadership Programs: Opportunities, Challenges, and Adaptations

Abstract

Improvement Science (IS) as a signature pedagogy has proliferated in doctoral leadership programs in recent years (Hinnant-Crawford, 2020; Perry et al., 2020); however, few studies have examined how faculty integrate IS throughout their programs and use IS to model continuous program improvement. This study examines how one Doctor of Education (EdD) Program utilizes IS to prepare educators to effectively lead change. This Program seeks to immerse students in the language of IS and prepare them to conduct meaningful, practical, innovative research. In accordance with the program’s emphasis on IS, this study seeks to better understand and improve program implementation (i.e., by identifying strengths, challenges, and areas for improvement), thus modeling how faculty can use IS to further enhance the student experience and support students in developing and applying the knowledge and skills they need.
Through an online, cohort-based model, the program seeks to foster in students a strong background in leadership, ethics, diversity, and research. In coursework and field-embedded experiences, students define complex problems, implement changes, and determine whether the changes result in improvements in educational systems and outcomes (Bryk et al., 2015; Hinnant-Crawford, 2020; Perry et al., 2020). Students complete a Dissertation in Practice (DiP) focused on identifying systems-level opportunities for change and innovation.
This program has grown considerably since its inception. While faculty have solicited informal student feedback, a more systematic approach was needed to determine the extent to which the program is effective in achieving its stated purpose in practice. This study examined the extent to which IS has been integrated throughout the program (e.g., structure, coursework, advising, DiP). In addition, through this research, faculty seek to model the use of IS in continuous program improvement efforts.
This exploratory sequential mixed-methods study has two phases (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). Phase 1 constituted a documented reflective review of the program design, planning, and early implementation (Amrein-Beardsley et al., 2012; Buss et al., 2017). Phase 2 examines students’ perceptions and experiences regarding their learning and its application to practice (Bourke & MacDonald, 2018; Doolittle et al., 2006; Friend & Caruthers, 2015). To mitigate power differential between faculty and students (Floyd & Arthur, 2012) and ensure confidentiality, faculty have not been involved in participant recruitment or data collection and only have access to de-identified data. Thus far, two PhD research assistants have conducted faculty interviews (n=7/15, 47%) and EdD student focus groups (n= 14/59, 24%). A student survey is currently underway.
Preliminary findings suggest the (a) use of rapid improvement cycles to implement real-time changes has enhanced the program in distinguishable ways, (b) emphasis on student voice in the improvement process has improved their overall experience (e.g., related to coursework, advising), and (c) ongoing efforts to provide support to struggling students, particularly in writing, are critical. Findings are supporting programmatic improvement efforts and ideally, in the field more broadly to better prepare doctoral students with the IS skills they need, improve their experiences in preparation, and support application of their learning.

Author

• Noelle A. Paufler, Clemson University
  Presenting Author