| Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
DOI: 10.3102/0013189X07313149 Comments on Shulman, Golde, Bueschel, and Garabedian: Existing Practice Is Not the TemplateAn associate professor at the University of South Florida, Lakeland, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, 3433 Winter Lake Road, LAC 1192, Lakeland, FL 33803; rod.evans{at}verizon.net. His research focuses on the pedagogical dimensions of educational leadership and the role of felt experience in the formulation of educational policy; an emerging area of interest is the role of higher education in an increasingly standardized and commodified world In the April 2006 issue of Educational Researcher, Shulman, Golde, Bueschel, and Garabedian offered their response to the recent outpouring of criticism calling for reform of doctoral education degrees in the United States. The centerpiece of their proposal was the development of a new practitioner-oriented doctoral degree to replace the Ed.D. This article critiques the conceptual validity of the proposal—especially the idea that existing practice can be the driving force for the proposed curriculum reforms. The author argues for a fuller and more complex form of practice as praxis, in contrast with Shulman et al.’s implied preference for concrete existing practice—what might be called the actuality of practice—as the template for future practice.
Key Words: curriculum reform • doctoral education • epistemology • practice • praxis
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
||||||||||||
 |
|
|
 |
 |
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
