Reclaiming Education’s Doctorates: A Critique and a Proposal
Reclaiming Education’s Doctorates: A Critique and a Proposal
复制标题
收回教育博士学位：批评与建议
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Kristen J. Garabedian
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
L. Shulman;Chris M. Golde;A. C. Bueschel;Kristen J. Garabedian
教育博士学位的问题是长期的和严重的。学者和实践者的准备目的是混乱的;因此，两者都做得不好。我们必须同时在两条战线上前进：重新思考和恢复研究博士学位，凭借其与实践的紧密联系，并发展一个强大而独特的实践博士学位（P.P.D.）。具有鲜明的学术基础。与目前大多数教育博士和艾德博士不同，这两个学位将服务于不同的目的，就像它们的医学类比-生物医学博士一样。还有医学博士会有不同的课程和评估。根据卡内基博士倡议和卡内基基金会对专业准备的研究中吸取的经验教训，我们认为这种改革是必要的和可能的。
The problems of the education doctorates are chronic and crippling. The purposes of preparing scholars and practitioners are confused; as a result, neither is done well. We must move forward on two fronts simultaneously: rethinking and reclaiming the research doctorate (the Ph.D.), with its strong links to practice, and developing a robust and distinct practice doctorate (the P.P.D.) with a distinctive scholarly base. Unlike most current education Ph.D.s and Ed.D.s, the two degrees would serve distinct purposes, and like their medical analogs—the biomedical Ph.D. and the M.D.—would have different curricula and assessments. Building on lessons learned in the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate and in the Carnegie Foundation’s studies of preparation for the professions, we argue that this reform is necessary and possible.