{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.035269709543568464, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004149377593360996, 'mean_word_length': 5.266233766233766, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Redefining the EdD: Seeking a Separate Identity

The purpose of this manuscript was to discuss the recommendations and guidelines of the Carnegie Group's 2007 effort to “Reclaim the EdD” as well as to outline the work completed at the University of Virginia related to their re-design of the Doctor of Education (EdD) degree. In order to address the re-envision and re-formulation of the Doctor of Education degree, several topics were covered: (a) differentiation of the Doctor of Education and the Doctor of Philosophy degrees; (b) limitation, characteristics, and principles of the Doctor of Education program; (c) proposed course of study; (d) training experiences for the Doctor of Education program; (e) research and dissertation requirements for the Doctor of Education program; and (f) the influence of how this newly re-envisioned Doctor of Education program might impact on Kinesiology, especially in the areas of pedagogy and adapted physical education.