EdD Project Study Checklist: Qualitative
•
•
•
•
•
The following provides guidance for reporting on EdD qualitative project studies.
All items may not be relevant to your particular study; please consult with your chair for guidance.
The checklist items may not necessarily be in the order that works best for your doctoral study. Please consult with your committee;
however, the checklist should work well in the absence of other considerations.
Instructions for students:
o Indicate on the checklist the page number (use the actual document page number, not the MS Word pagination) where the
appropriate indicator is located.
o Respond to comments from the committee in each comment history box. Do not delete previous commentsjust add your
response in the appropriate space.
Instructions for the chair and/or committee members:
o Provide specific feedback in the comment history column. Do not delete previous commentsjust add your response in the
appropriate space.
o If you made detailed comments on the draft (using track changes and comments), you can make reference to the draft rather
than restate everything in the checklist comment history section.
Date: (click here and type today’s date)
Student’s Name:
Program:
Committee Members’ Names:
Chairperson:
Member:
University Research Reviewer:
Student ID:
Front Matter
Checklist Items
Comment History
Title
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Most important conceptual issue investigated.
Qualitative tradition applied.
Participant group to which the study applies.
Describe the overall problem and why it is important.
Identify the purpose of the study.
State the theoretical foundations and/or conceptual
frameworks, as appropriate.
Summarize the key research question(s) as statements.
Describe, concisely, the overall research design, methods,
and data analysis procedures. (include number of
participants)
Identify key results, conclusions, and project as an outcome
(for the final study only).
Conclude with a statement on the implications for positive
social change and local applications.
Student Response: (click here)
Abstract
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
Section 1: The Problem
Checklist Items
Describe the local problem that prompted the
study. Discuss the gap in practice in appropriate
scholarly language.
Situate the problem within the larger population
or educational situation.
Present the rationale or justification for the
problem choice. Present support from data,
including appropriate personal communications.
Answer the question, “Who thinks this is a
problem other than you?”
Conclude with the purpose or intent of the study.
Define and cite any special terms associated
with the problem—including variables and/or
conceptual terms.
Present citations from scholarly literature or
local documents—no dictionaries or Wikipedia,
etc.
Pg/NA
Comment History
The Local Problem
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
Rationale
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
Definition of Terms
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
Present the significance of the study problem.
Describe how studying this problem might be
useful to the local educational setting.
Begin with a paragraph statement to frame the
questions in relation to the problem and purpose
of the study.
State the research questions. The questions
should investigate the nature of the problem and
the best solution to the problem.
Significance of the Study
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
Research Question(s)
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
Review of Literature
The first review of literature in the EdD Project Study addresses the problem.
Conceptual Framework
Identify and define the concept and/or
phenomenon that grounds the study.
Concisely describe the conceptual framework (a
description of the body of research that supports
the need for the study) as derived from the
literature.
State the logical connections among key
elements of the framework.
State how the framework relates to the study
approach and key research questions, as well
as to instrument development and data analysis,
where appropriate.
Review of the Broader Problem
Present an overview of topics covered in the
review and indicate how the search was
conducted. (Search terms and efforts to find
related research should be explained.)
Provide a critical review of the broader problem
associated with the local problem addressed in
the study.
Demonstrate saturation; 25-40 current (within 5
years of study completion), peer-reviewed
sources in addition to the framework references
and seminal works as needed.
Discuss any relevant public data.
Include a critical analysis of the body of
literature (and should not read like an annotated
bibliography).
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
Implications
Discuss implications for possible project
directions based on anticipated findings of the
data collection and analysis.
Include tentative directions for the project
deliverable, but the findings of the research
must inform the development of the project.
Avoid stating outcomes and project as a
foregone conclusion.
End with a transition statement that contains a
summary of key points of the section.
Present an overview of the content of remaining
sections.
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
Summary
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
Section 2: The Methodology
First part of Section 2 relates to proposal stage / second half relates to final study and includes results
Checklist Items
Pg/NA
Comment History
Qualitative Research Design and Approach
Describe how the research or evaluation design
Chair Comments: (click here)
derives logically from the problem and research
Second Member Comments: (click here)
(guiding) question.
URR Comments: (click here)
Provide a description of the qualitative tradition
or research design that will be used.
Student Response: (click here)
Justify the choice of research design with
explanations why other likely choices would be
less effective.
If conducting an evaluation, include the type of
evaluation (goal-based, outcomes based,
formative, or summative), justification for using
this type of evaluation, the goals for a goalbased evaluation, the outcomes and
performance measures that will be utilized as
indicators, and the overall evaluation goals.
Participants
Describe the criteria for selecting participants.
Chair Comments: (click here)
Justify the number of participants, balanced with
Second Member Comments: (click here)
depth of inquiry. (In general, the fewer the
URR Comments: (click here)
participants the deeper the inquiry per
individual.)
Student Response: (click here)
Describe the procedures for gaining access to
participants.
Explain methods of establishing a researcherparticipant working relationship.
Present measures that will be taken for the
protection or participants’ rights, including
confidentiality, informed consent, and protection
from harm.
Describe and justify the data for collection. The
data must be appropriate to the type of
evaluation and to the qualitative tradition
chosen.
Identify each data collection instrument and
source (observation sheet, interview protocol,
focus group protocol, video-tape, audio-tape,
artifacts, archived data, and other kinds of data
collection instruments).
Identify the source for each data collection
instrument (published or researcher produced).
Data Collection
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
If historical or legal documents are used as a
source of data, demonstrate the reputability of
the sources and justify why they represent the
best source of data.
Establish sufficiency of data collection
instruments to answer research questions.
Provide processes for how and when the data
are to be generated, gathered, and recorded.
Describe the systems for keeping track of data
and emerging understandings (research logs,
reflective journals, cataloging systems).
Explain the procedures for gaining access to
participants.
Present the role of the researcher—including
past/current professional roles at the setting,
past/current professional relationship with the
participants, how these roles and relationships
may affect data collections, and the researcher’s
experiences or biases that are related to the
topic.
Present how and when the data will be
analyzed—including coding procedures and
software applications, when appropriate.
Describe the evidence of quality and procedures
to assure accuracy and credibility of the findings
(e.g., member checks, triangulation, peer
debriefing, clarifying researcher bias, etc.).
Data Analysis
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
Explain the procedures for dealing with
discrepant cases.
If this is an evaluation study, present the
limitations of the evaluation.
Limitations
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
[Content of Proposal Ends Here. See APA Form and Style Check at the end of the Checklist.]
Checklist Items
Clearly review the process by which the data
were generated, gathered, and recorded.
Build the findings from the problem and
research question(s).
Present patterns, relationships, and themes as
findings supported by the data and aligned with
the research questions.
Account for all salient data in the findings and
appropriately handles discrepant cases.
Discuss the evidence of quality how the study
followed procedures to address accuracy of the
data (e.g., member checks, triangulation, etc.)
Refer to appropriate evidence in appendixes
(sample transcripts, researcher logs, field notes,
etc.)
Summarize outcomes logically and
systematically in relation to the problem and
research question(s) and to the larger body of
literature on the topic, including the
Section 2: The Methodology (do not repeat section heading)
(For Final Study)
Pg/NA
Comment History
Data Analysis Results
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
conceptual/theoretical framework.
Describe the project deliverable as an outcome
of the results.
The student and committee must meet to
discuss the findings and the most
appropriate project based on the findings.
Committee approval is required before the
student may proceed to write Section 3--The
Project.
Section 3: The Project
(For Final Study)
Checklist Items
Present a brief description of the proposed
project. Remember that the project is the artifact
or deliverable that students create based on the
findings from their research. This completed,
doctoral-level product is placed in Appendix A of
the final study.
There are 4 basic genres of projects:
Evaluation Report (for an evaluation study)
• Explains purpose of evaluation, criteria, &
major outcomes
• Addresses local needs
• Meets standards for PE—length varies—
plan on 15-30 pages
Curriculum Plan
• Includes purpose, level, learners, scope, &
sequence
• Describes materials, units, & lessons in
detail (objectives, activities, assessments,
teacher notes, and evaluation plan)
• Specifies details of plan—minimum of 9
week curriculum plan
Professional Development/Training
Curriculum and Materials
• Includes purpose, goals, learning outcomes,
& target audience
• Outlines components, timeline, activities,
trainer notes, & module formats
• Provides materials (PPTs, etc.),
implementation plan, & evaluation plan
• Specifies hour-by-hour detail of training—
minimum of 3 full days of training
Policy Recommendation with Detail (position
paper)
Pg/NA
Comment History
Introduction
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
•
Includes background of existing
policy/problem, summary of
analysis/findings
• Presents major evidence from both literature
and research
• Outlines recommendations—connected to
the evidence—related to audience
• Appropriate length varies by topic—plan on
15-30 pages
Describe the goals of the proposed project.
Present a scholarly rationale of why the project
genre was chosen including considerations of
the data analysis in Section 2, and how the
problem will be addressed through the content
of the project.
Present a scholarly review of literature related to
the specific genre of project. (Must not repeat
themes from Section 1 review of literature.)
Explain how the genre is appropriate to address
the problem and criteria from the research
and/or theory used to guide development of the
project.
Present a thorough, critical, interconnected
analysis of how theory and research support the
content of the project, including discussion of
findings from Section 2.
Indicate how search was conducted, including
search terms and efforts to find related
research.
Demonstrate saturation through the use of 2540 recent (within 5 years of study completion
date), peer-reviewed sources.
Present justification if not meeting minimum
number of sources or if other types of sources
are used.
Present the needed resources, existing
supports, potential barriers, and potential
solutions to barriers.
Discuss the proposal for implementation,
including a timetable.
Explain the roles and responsibilities of student
Rationale
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
Review of the Literature
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
Project Description
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
and any others involved.
Project Evaluation Plan
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Unless the project genre was an evaluation,
present the type of evaluation planned for the
project deliverable (goal-based, outcomes
based, formative, or summative).
Provide a justification for using this type of
evaluation.
Explain the overall goals of the project (for a
goals-based evaluation) or outcome measures
that will be utilized (for an outcomes-based
evaluation).
Discuss the overall evaluation goals.
Include a description of the key stakeholders.
Student Response: (click here)
Project Implications
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Summarize possible social change implications.
Provide importance of the project to local
stakeholders and in larger context.
Student Response: (click here)
Section 4: Reflections and Conclusions
(For Final Study)
Checklist Items
Ground a discussion of project strengths and
limitations in addressing the problem in the
appropriate literature.
Focus discussion on project deliverable, not
research or local site.
Describe ways to address the problem
differently based up work of the study.
Present alternative definitions of the problem
and alternative solutions to the local problem.
Describe what was learned about the
processes—specific to the research and
development of the project. Use scholarly
language throughout.
Present reflective analysis about personal
learning/growth of self as a scholar, practitioner,
and project developer—specific to the research
Pg/NA
Comment History
Project Strengths and Limitations
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
Recommendations for Alternative Approaches
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
Scholarship, Project Development, and Leadership and Change
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
and development of the project.
Reflect and discuss on the importance of the
work overall, and what was learned.
Reflection on the Importance of the Work
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
Implications, Applications, and Directions for Future Research
Describe the potential impact for positive social
Chair Comments: (click here)
change at the appropriate level (individual,
Second Member Comments: (click here)
family, organizational, and societal/policy).
URR Comments: (click here)
Ensure implications for social change do not
exceed the study boundaries.
Describe methodological, theoretical, and/or
empirical implications, as appropriate.
Describe recommendations for practice and/or
for future research, as appropriate.
Provide a strong “take home” message that
captures the key essence of the study.
Student Response: (click here)
Conclusion
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
Appendix A: The Project
(For Final Study)
Checklist Items
Include all components of project in Appendix A.
Meet standards of genre at a scholarly doctoral level. Refer
to genre examples/standards in rubric for Section 3.
Ensure immediate applicability to setting and problem.
Use appropriate language for stakeholders or audience.
Include only original products.
Comment History
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
APA Form and Style Check
Checklist Items
Citations and Referencing
All citations have been crosschecked to ensure that there
are corresponding references (and that there are no
references that do not have associated citations).
All sources are cited correctly per APA formatting
requirements (for example, studies listed in alphabetical
order by first author; no first names of authors).
Grammar, Spelling, and Syntax
Comment History
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
The paper has been thoroughly checked for grammar,
spelling, and syntax errors.
For the final doctoral study, the doctoral study has been
checked for correct verb tense representing a completed
study.
Headings
Headings are used, consistent with the Walden Doctoral
study Template.
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
Use of the Writing Center Template
The Writing Center Doctoral Study Template (APA, 6th
edition) was used to construct the proposal and/or doctoral
study so that all formatting is correct.
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
Use of Academic Integrity Check
An anti-plagiarism report was run with the exclusions
setting set to “Exclude < 4 words”. Previous submissions
(false matches) should also be excluded.
Chair Comments: (click here)
Second Member Comments: (click here)
URR Comments: (click here)
Student Response: (click here)
Ed.D. Doctoral Planning Tool with Active Links to Resources
The 18 Doctoral Milestones Linked to “Just in Time” Information (Revised 9/25/15)
Use this Planning Tool to set personal completion goals for each milestone. This is not a contract. This is only a planning tool that neither promises nor predicts the rate of student progress or time to degree
completion. Time to completion will vary by student, depending on individual progress and credits transferred, if applicable. For a personalized estimate of your time to completion, call an enrollment advisor at
1-866-492-5336. – How to use this Tool
Students are required to show progress each term in order to receive satisfactory grades and remain in the program. The program limit is 8 years
Term before
8081
EDUC 8081
EDUC 8090
Prospectus
approved in
TaskStream
use the rubric
Your
Doctoral
Committee
Assignment
Form (DCAF)
Submitted
Submit URR
Request Form
2 wks before
proposal
approval
Target
______
_____
______
Before
3 mo.
Insert
Chair & 2nd
member
approve
proposal per
rubric and
checklist
_______
Proposal to
URR Review
Begin URR
revisions
URR Approval
Proposal Oral
Conference
Submit IRB
Application
IRB Approval
______
______
________
______
_______
19 mo.
21 mo.
Date
Sample
Timeframe*
Doc Process
18.5 mo.
19 mo.
21.5 mo.
21.5 mo.
22 mo.
(12 additional mos.)
Collect &
Analyze Data,
write up all
findings
Complete 1st
draft of
completed
Capstone
Study
Committee
approves final
draft using the
appropriate
rubric and/or
checklist
Final draft
URR Review
Begin URR
revisions
URR Approval
Form & Style
Review
Final Oral
Conference
Final URR
Review
Final Study
Approved by
CAO
_______
______
______
_______
_______
______
______
_______
______
33 mo.
33 mo.
24 mo.
29 mo.
31 mo.
31 mo.
34 mo.
35 mo.
36 mo.
*Cumulative, based on 60 months for the entire program
Key Doctoral Process Resources Arranged Chronologically
(Links to What You Need, When You Need It)
All EdD HEAL candidates must complete a Project Study. All candidates enrolled after 1/1/2009 must complete a Project Study.
Non-Heal students enrolled before 1/1/2009 may choose either Project or Research study. EdD SPED & ECE students also have a
choice. Please confer with your program director if you have questions.
General Policies and Procedures – The Walden Student Handbook
Residency Completion - Go to MyWalden and click on Student Center to find the Residency Center. All students should have
completed a residency before beginning the doctoral process.
□ Step 1: Prospectus-completed and approved in ePortfolio
o Go to the Walden Doctoral Capstone Resource Website
o Review the Writing Center Doctoral Capstone Preproposal Starter Kit
o Review “What resources are available to help me write my capstone”
o Get the EdD Doctoral Committee Assignment Form (DCAF)
o You owe it to yourself: Survey the Resources at Find resources at Student Support
o Review My Doctoral Research (MyDR) tutorials
o Click to find the Prospectus Guide
o Click to find the EdD Prospectus Template
o Click to find the Prospectus Rubric
o Click to find and complete Research Planning and Writing tutorials
o Click and learn to love revisions
o Click for APA Reference List APA Helps
o Complete the Design Alignment Tool
o Click to learn about Scholarly Voice
o What resources are available to help me write my capstone
□ Step 2: Proposal
2
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Click to find the EdD Doctoral Study Rubric
Click to find the Design Alignment Tool
Click to find the EdD Doctoral Study Writing Template
Be sure to study Doctoral-Level Writing, including
• Word Choice
• Tone
• Use of Evidence
Click to Ask a Librarian for assistance
Click to improve your skills in Critical Reading and Critical Thinking
Click to review Ethical Guides for various types of research
Click to find the Center for Research Quality
• Trouble with Theoretical/Conceptual Framework? Theoretical Frameworks
• Literature Reviews; Common Errors Made When Conducting a Literature Review
• Reviewing the Literature and Incorporating Previous Research
• Trouble with Methodology? Research Design: A Tutorial
Click to find Writing Center Capstone Resources. This is a great resource!
Have you planned for a major life event?
This cannot be scheduled but one should plan for it.
Find resources at Student Support and/or contact Academic Advising
□ Step 3: Proposal University Research Review (URR)
o Click to find Academic Integrity and Turnitin
o Click to find the Univ. Research Review (URR) submission process
o Click to find the URR Request Form and URR FAQs
o Want to speed up? Click to learn about Capstone Intensive Retreats
□ Step 4: Proposal Oral Conference
o Click to find the Form to Schedule Proposal Conference
□ Step 5: Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval
o Double-check IRB Guides, FAQ, & Tutorials
3
o
o
o
o
Click to find the IRB Office Hours for Questions
Click to find the IRB application and all sample documents from the IRB Page of the CRQ website
Review Sample Documents for IRB
Research Ethics and Compliance Links
□ Step 6: Completion of Doctoral Study Final Draft
o Click to find Writing Center Resources, including:
• Prewriting
• Writers Block
• And a good review of Scholarly Writing
•
•
•
•
•
Refresh yourself on using concise, precise, and clear language.
Learn how to avoid bias.
Rediscover the power of strong, logical arguments.
Follow these guidelines for incorporating evidence into your work.
Check out some general resources on scholarly writing.
□ Step 7: URR Approval
o Click to find URR policies
□ Step 8: Form and Style Review
o Click for the Form & Style Timeline
o Click for the Form & Style Form & Style checklist
o For Doctoral Study answers from the Writing Center, email editor@waldenu.edu.
□ Step 9: Doctoral Study Oral Conference
o Click to find the Form to Schedule Proposal Conference
□ Step 10: Final URR Review
o Click to find info about Abstracts at the Writing Center
o Click to find Abstract Office Hours & Assistance at the Center for Research Quality
□ Step 11: Chief Academic Officer Approval
o Click to learn about Publishing through ProQuest
4
o
o
o
o
Click to find the Graduation Application
Click to learn about the Doctoral Study Award Program
Click to learn about Writing for Publication & Conference Presentations
Click to learn about Presidential Alumni Research Dissemination Awards
Finally, remember that your chair and other faculty members are your best resources for specific, content-related questions.
5
Student Name:
Date:
Design Alignment Tool
Study Problem
and Purpose
Provide one sentence
for each. They must
align with all RQ rows.
Research Questions
Data Collection Tools
Datapoints Yielded
List each research question
(RQ) in a separate row
below. Add or delete rows,
as needed.
List which instrument(s) are
used to collect the data that
will address each RQ.
List which specific
questions/variables/scales of
the instrument will address
each RQ.
RQ 1:
RQ 2:
RQ 3:
Data Source
List which
persons/artifacts/records
will provide the data.
Data Analysis
Briefly describe the
specific statistical or
qualitative analyses that
will address each RQ.
EdD Capstone Rubrics and Checklists by Stage
Revised EdD Rubrics and Checklists…Can you explain clearly what forms are
required when?
The stages and timing of the University Research Review process have not fundamentally changed; only
the documents have changed. However, the following outline may help clarify.
Proposal Writing Stage
Student: Complete the proposal and the appropriate Doctoral Study Checklist by identifying the page number where
items are located in the proposal. Use the comment blocks to provide any clarifying information for the reviewers.
Student: Submit the proposal and Doctoral Study Checklist to the Committee Chair.
Committee Chair: Review the proposal and the Doctoral Study Checklist and evaluate the proposal.
➢
If the proposal is assessed as not ready for committee review based on the criteria in the Doctoral Study Minimum
Standards Rubric, the Committee Chair provides feedback to the student using the Checklist and/or the Doctoral Study
Minimum Standards Rubric (depending on the nature of the feedback).
➢
If the proposal is assessed as ready for further review, the Committee Chair forwards the proposal, the Doctoral Study
Checklist, and his/her completed Doctoral Study Minimum Standards Rubric to the Committee Member for review.
➢
Once the Committee Chair and Committee Member agree that the proposal has met all the Doctoral Study Minimum
Standards Rubric criteria (items 1-8 of the 10 criteria), the proposal is ready for Committee URR review. The Committee
Chair then forwards to the Committee URR: 1) proposal document; 2) Turnitin Report; 3) the completed Doctoral Study
Checklist completed by the student and with any comments by the committee Chair and/or Member; and 4) the Doctoral
Study Minimum Standards Rubrics completed by each member indicating that the applicable standards have been met (it is
best to keep the history of comments to the student for Committee URR to review as well).
Doctoral Study Writing Stage
Student: Complete the doctoral study and extend the Doctoral Study Checklist by identifying the page number where
items are located in the final doctoral study. Add directly to the checklist used for the proposal, when possible. Use the
comment blocks to provide any clarifying information for the reviewers.
Student: Submit the completed doctoral study and Doctoral Study Checklist to the Committee Chair.
Committee Chair: Review the final study and the Doctoral Study Checklist and evaluate the final study.
➢
If the study document is assessed as not ready for committee review based on the criteria in the Doctoral Study Minimum
Standards Rubric, the Committee Chair provides feedback to the student using the Checklist and/or the Doctoral Study
Minimum Standards Rubric (depending on the nature of the feedback).
➢
If the final study is assessed as ready for further review, the Committee Chair forwards the study, the Doctoral Study
Checklist, and a completed Doctoral Study Minimum Standards Rubric to the Committee Member for review.
➢
Once the Chair and Committee Member agree that the final doctoral study has met all the Doctoral Study Minimum
Standards Rubric criteria (all of the 10 criteria), the doctoral study is ready for Committee URR review. The Committee Chair
then forwards to the Committee URR: 1) final doctoral study document; 2) Turnitin Report; 3) the completed Doctoral
Study Checklist completed by the student and with any comments by the committee Chair and/or Member; and 4) the
Doctoral Study Minimum Standards Rubrics completed by each member indicating that all standards have been met (it is
best to keep the history of comments to the student for Committee URR to review as well).
Final Study Stage/Post-Oral Defense (pre-CAO review)
Committee Chair and Committee Member:
➢ Chair forwards the final study document and final quality rubric from each committee member directly to the
URR, while copying doctoralstudy@waldenu.edu
Committee URR:
➢ Forwards review (brief statement to chair, final document, and final quality rubric—indicating if approved for
CAO review) to committee chair, while copying doctoralstudy@waldenu.edu
EdD Minimum Standards Rubric
The key indicators in the EdD Minimum Standards Rubric are used to assure the overall quality of the document. To be completed individually by the chair, committee member,
and University Research Review (URR) member at the proposal and final study stages.
Instructions
For each indicator, choose “Target” (exceeds expectations), “Acceptable” (meets expectations), or “Unacceptable” (does not meet expectations) to represent if the document meets
that quality indicator. All indicators are required. If review suggests that any parts of the indicator are not complete, the appropriate score is that the document is “Unacceptable.” For
items marked “Unacceptable,” please indicate ways in which the document can be improved to meet the standard.
Items 9 and 10 are relevant to the final study only. All reviewers must rate each indicator as Target or Acceptable in order for the document to be considered as having met minimum
standards.
Date: (click here and type today’s date)
Student’s Name:
Program:
Student ID:
Committee Members’ Names:
Chairperson:
Member:
University Research Reviewer:
Target
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Referring to the appropriate checklist,
the document is complete for the
stage in the process and is of
exceptional quality.
Referring to the appropriate checklist,
the document is complete for the
stage in the process and is of
acceptable quality.
The candidate’s submission is
unacceptable.
2. The problem is clearly articulated,
worthy of doctoral level research,
and within the scope of the
discipline.
The candidate has completed this
criterion with exceptional quality.
The candidate has completed this
criterion with acceptable quality.
The candidate’s submission is
unacceptable.
3. The work is grounded in a focused
application of the relevant theories or
conceptual frameworks.
The candidate has completed this
criterion with exceptional quality.
1. The document includes all relevant
items from the checklist.
If unacceptable, which items are
missing?
If unacceptable, what is the reasoning
for this assessment?
The candidate has completed this
criterion with acceptable quality.
The candidate’s submission is
unacceptable.
If unacceptable, what other theories or
frameworks might be more
appropriate?
4. The literature review is exhaustive
and reflects mastery of the current
state of knowledge in the discipline
related to the area of research.
The candidate has completed this
criterion with exceptional quality.
The candidate has completed this
criterion with acceptable quality.
The candidate’s submission is
unacceptable.
If unacceptable, what is the reasoning
for this assessment?
Score/Level
Target
5. The problem statement, purpose,
research questions, and/or
hypotheses, design, and
methodology are consistent with the
state of knowledge development in
the discipline described in the
literature review.
The candidate has completed this
criterion with exceptional quality.
6. The research design and
methodology, including issues of
sampling, sample size (quantitative
and mixed method studies),
participant numbers (qualitative and
mixed method studies),
instrumentation, data collection, data
analyses, and procedures are
appropriate to answer the research
questions and/or test hypotheses.
The candidate has completed this
criterion with exceptional quality.
7. The problem statement, purpose,
research questions and/or
hypotheses, design, and
methodology are consistent and
aligned.
The candidate has completed this
criterion with exceptional quality.
8. The study describes implications
for positive social change at the
appropriate levels—individual,
community, and/or societal (proposal
and final study).
The candidate has completed this
criterion with exceptional quality.
9. Results are accurately presented
and are aligned with the research
questions and/or hypotheses,
design, and analysis.
The candidate has completed this
criterion with exceptional quality.
10. Conclusions, limitations,
recommendations, and/or outcomes
are clearly described, are appropriate
to the study scope, and are
integrated into the state of
knowledge described in the literature
review.
The candidate has completed this
criterion with exceptional quality.
Acceptable
The candidate has completed this
criterion with acceptable quality.
Unacceptable
The candidate’s submission is
unacceptable.
If unacceptable, what is the reasoning
for this assessment?
The candidate has completed this
criterion with acceptable quality.
The candidate’s submission is
unacceptable.
If unacceptable, what is the reasoning
for this assessment?
The candidate has completed this
criterion with acceptable quality.
The candidate’s submission is
unacceptable.
If unacceptable, in what ways could
aspects of the prospectus be better
aligned?
The candidate has completed this
criterion with acceptable quality.
The candidate’s submission is
unacceptable.
If unacceptable, what is the reasoning
for this assessment?
The candidate has completed this
criterion with acceptable quality.
The candidate’s submission is
unacceptable.
If unacceptable, what is the reasoning
for this assessment?
The candidate has completed this
criterion with acceptable quality.
The candidate’s submission is
unacceptable.
If unacceptable, what is the reasoning
for this assessment?
Score/Level
Purchase answer to see full
attachment