Designing a Professional Practice Doctoral Degree in Educational Technology: Signature Pedagogies, Implications and Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article we outline the three dimensions of signature pedagogy guiding the design of our professional practice doctoral degree in Educational Technology. This program was developed based on our experiences with the Carnegie Initiative on the Education Doctorate and work with many students for whom the Ph.D. was not an exact match with their career goals. We also share preliminary data related to program effectiveness and provide recommendation for others interesting in designing professional practice programs. Through this work we have come to believe Educational Technology is a discipline ripe with potential to meet the needs of scholars and professional practitioners through terminal degree programs differentiated based on career goals and contexts. Resume Dans cet article, nous decrivons les trois dimensions de la didactique appliquee, dit signature pedagogy en anglais ayant guide la conception de notre programme de doctorat professionnel en technologie educative. Ce programme a ete elabore a partir de nos experiences realisees dans le cadre de la Carnegie Initiative on the Education Doctorate et du travail effectue avec de nombreux etudiants pour qui le diplome doctoral traditionnel―axe sur une carriere academique―ne correspondait pas a leurs objectifs de carriere. Nous partageons aussi des resultats preliminaires en lien avec l’efficacite des programmes et fournissons des conseils pour ceux qui s’interessent a la conception de programmes de type professionnel. Par ces travaux, nous en sommes venus a croire que la technologie educative est une discipline qui deborde de potentiel pour repondre aux besoins des chercheurs academiques et des praticiens professionnels par l’elaboration de programmes doctoraux qui se differencient selon les objectifs de carriere et les contextes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".