12/1/07 10:11 1 of 21

The Regulations for the Doctor of Education Programme Awards

School of Lifelong Learning and Education

Middlesex University

Trent Park

March 2006

Programme Leader: Dr Ian Terrell, Director of the Midwheb Partnership.

(Version EdDReg v6 July, 2006)

1

12/1/07 10:11 2 of 21

Introduction The Doctor of Education is a part-time, modular, post graduate research based programme consisting of four stages, which are

• Stage One: Planning, Research and Authoring Skills (3 modules of 30 credits each) • Stage Two: Research Project (s) (1, 2 or 3 modules totalling 180 credits) • Stage Three : Thesis: Coherence and Examination ( 1 module of 90 credits)

* see table one below for detail from the validation researcher programme guide and handbook.

The credit total for the Doctor of Education award is therefore 360 credits. For the award of M Phil the candidate would have a credit total of 150 credits including a 60 credit research project. All credits are assessed against University level 5 criteria. The modular approach provides achievable short term goals, a step by step approach to planning, research expertise development, conceptualisation and examination and is broadly similar and equivalent to the stages gone through by candidates undertaking a PhD by publication. The entry qualification for the Ed.D programme is an MA Education or its equivalent. Table 1 The Doctor of Education Programme; Stage 2,3 and 4 from the Researcher Guide and Handbook. Timescale Research and Enquiry Activities

This year is spent in preparation and planning while undertaking three modules at level 5 (below)

Stage One

EDU 5200 Developing Advanced Professional Practice (Assignments are 6000 words or equivalent)

EDU 5201 Research and Enquiry Methodology and Methods (Assignments are 6000 words or equivalent)

EDU 5202 Conceptualising the Body of Knowledge (Assignments are 6000 words or equivalent)

Stage Two

Research Projects (Options EDU 5301 to EDU 5306) You have options here to do one big research project of 180 credits, two medium projects of 90 credits, or three smaller of 60 credits. The credit value depends upon the scale of the enquiry and report that you produce. The total length of the assignments for these two years will be 36,000 words or equivalent. The projects have to meet level 5 criteria. (There is an exit point of an M.Phil after successful completion of at least 60 credits of research projects and the previous year level 5 credit (above) for those wishing to take this option)

Stage Three Thesis, examination and validation. This is a single module of 90 credits containing three elements:

1. A synthesis of the research projects and experiential learning; 2. Presentation to an academic audience and oral examination; 3. Public exhibition and validation.

The assignment in total should amount to 18,000 words or equivalent. The module has to meet level 5 criteria.

* The three stages are normally to be completed in a maximum 7 years or minimum of three years (part time) (see 3.9 below)

2

12/1/07 10:11 3 of 21

1. Principles 1.1 Middlesex University shall award the degree of Doctor of Education (Ed D) to a candidate who has successfully completed Stages 1 through 3 of the programme and satisfied the examinations procedures as set out in the regulations. The degree of Master of Philosophy (M.Phil) shall be awarded to a candidate who has:-

a. enrolled for the M.Phil, successfully completed Stages 1 through 2 of the programme and satisfied the examination procedures as set out in the regulations (6.2 - 6.6), or b. enrolled for the Ed D, has successfully completed Stages 1 through 2 of the programme, has submitted the required assignments for assessments under the regulations for Stage3, and is judged at examination to qualify for the award of M.Phil (11.4.3)

1.2 Research and development projects [hereafter referred to as research project(s)’] may be proposed in specific fields of educational enquiry as designated by the School of Life Long Learning and Education. Central to project investigations will be the interplay between educational research and professional practice. Candidates will often locate their research project work within their own employing institution, although this is not a requirement. Such research projects must satisfy the standard of the award, and constitute a valid and coherent research programme which is approved by the Programme Assessment Board meeting for this purpose as the Programme Approval Panel

1.3 Stage 2 of the programme shall consist of one, two, or three research projects. In cases

where a candidate undertakes two or three such research projects, the link between them shall be made clear to the Programme Approval Panel and must satisfy the Panel. The research projects shall be examined simultaneously and as one linked and integrated research programme.

1.4 A candidate may submit the results of work carried out in conjunction with other candidates or

researchers. In such cases, the candidate shall identify, distinguish, and justify his/her contribution to the research project and the other candidates or researchers shall verify their respective contributions.

1.5 Work already formally published, or placed in the public domain, including that in joint names,

may be included provided it forms an integral part of the research project and thereby makes a relevant contribution to the main theme and coherence of the research project. A series of publications alone is not acceptable as a research project.

1.6 Publications in joint names shall be certified in accordance with paragraph 1.4 above. 1.7 The scope of the research project(s) shall be determined as part of the Programme Approval

process. The focus and coherence shall be taken into account by the Programme Approval Panel.

1.8 Stage 3 research projects must be undertaken by part-time mode of study, as for other stages

of the programme. 1.9 Candidates undertaking Stages 2 and 3 shall use the Appeals Procedure for Research

Degree Candidates, or the Complaints and Grievance Procedures for Research Degree Students in cases where this should become necessary.

3

12/1/07 10:11 4 of 21

2. Application for Registration for Stage 2 of the Programme 2.1 No candidate for the award of either the Ed D or the M Phil shall progress to Stage 3 until

he/she has: (a) successfully completed Stage 1 of the programme, and (b) has satisfied the Programme approval Panel of his/her competence to progress to Stage 2. 2.2 The competence of a candidate to progress to Stage 3 shall be assessed by means of a

presentation and oral questioning by the Programme Approval Panel. The presentation shall normally be 20 minutes in length and this shall by followed by questioning and discussion with the candidate normally also of 20 minutes duration.

2.3 The Programme Approval Panel shall be chaired by the Director of Research and

Postgraduate Studies of the School of Life Long Learning and Education (or nominee). There shall also be a Secretary to the Panel.

2.4 The Programme Approval Panel shall consider whether or not the candidate’s research

project(s) satisfies the requirements for an Ed D award (or an M Phil award as appropriate). When considering a research and development research project, the Panel shall be satisfied that: (a) the potential of the research project(s) satisfies Level 5 descriptors and the specific

requirements of the degree as set out in the Handbook; (b) for the Ed D that the proposed research project work is coherent (especially where it is

proposed to undertake two or more research projects) and there is a rationale for any accredited learning;

(c) the proposed research project work is feasible and is likely to lead to successful

completion of the Ed D or M Phil, as appropriate; (d) the candidate’s employer/sponsor has given it its agreement, where appropriate; (e) the level of the award sought and proposed title are appropriate; (f) there is a rationale for any collaboration in the proposed research and development

programme; (g) relevant issues such as ethics and health and safety have been taken into account. 2.5 Following completion of the assessment, the Panel may decide/recommend: .1 that registration for Stage 2 be permitted; or .2 that registration for Stage 2 be permitted subject to minor amendments to the research

and development research project(s) being approved by the Chair within a specified period of time; or

.3 that further work be undertaken on the proposed research and development research

project(s) prior to registration for Stage 2, and re-submitted to a subsequent meeting of the Panel. In this case, there shall be only one re-submission as of right.

4

12/1/07 10:11 5 of 21

2.6 Panel members shall each complete an assessment sheet while the Panel is in session. Assessment sheets of all Panel members shall be retained by the Secretary of the Panel together with the official record of decisions taken by the Panel.

2.7 Candidates shall be informed in writing of the outcome of their Panel assessment. The

notification letter shall be written by the Chair in consultation with the candidate’s supervisor, and shall include a statement in respect of the outcome of recommendation in respect of 2.5 above.

3. The Registration Period 3.1 Approval by the Programme Approval Panel shall permit a candidate to progress to Stage 2 of

the Programme. The Research project modules are described in the Programme Handbook and all are assessed at level 5.

3.2 In stage 2 for the Ed D programme, a candidate may undertake one, two or three research

projects leading to 180 credits in total. Candidates shall be permitted a maximum of 60 credits as accredited prior learning for this part of the programme.

3.3 In stage 2 for the M Phil programme, a candidate undertakes only one research project

leading to 60 credits. No accredited prior learning shall be permitted. 3.4 Word length for the research projects shall be based on the University standard of 6000 words

per 30 credits. 3.5 Changes to the number of research projects undertaken by a candidate for the Ed D

programme during the registration period, for example from two research projects to three, shall only be permitted with the approval of the Programme Approval Panel.

3.6 Stage 2 research project work shall normally be completed in one year. 3.7 A candidate shall submit his/her work as directed in the Programme Handbook by the

deadline specified on the information sheet given to candidates. The Programme Approval Panel may exceptionally extend a candidate’s period of registration normally for not more than one year at a time. It shall be the candidate’s responsibility to send a written request for extension of time to the Chair of the Programme Approval Panel with a copy to his/her principal supervisor, and the Programme Administrator. Any extension granted shall be notified to the candidate and principal supervisor in writing by the Programme Administrator.

3.8 Where a candidate is prevented by ill-health or other good cause from making progress with

the work, the registration may be suspended by the Programme Approval Panel in its discretion, normally for not more than one year at a time. It shall be a candidate’s responsibility to inform the Programme Administrator of any circumstance, medical, personal, or work-related, which may affect his/her progress with the research project(s). The candidate shall be notified in writing by the Programme Administrator of the decision of the Programme Approval Panel in respect of the re-negotiated timescale for the research project(s).

3.9 The whole programme (Stages 1-3) shall normally be completed within a maximum of 7 years.

Times in excess of this shall be referred to Research and Research Degrees Committee. The minimum time for completion is normally three years part time.

3.10 The Programme Assessment Board working through the Programme Administrator, shall

monitor the progress of each candidate after 6 months to establish, insofar as is reasonably possible on the information available that good progress is being made, and that supervision, support and facilities are adequate. Upon receipt of monitoring reports from the Programme

5

12/1/07 10:11 6 of 21

Administrator, the Programme Assessment Board shall take any necessary action. This may include adding another supervisor to the team, increasing or decreasing the number of research projects the candidate takes, changing a candidate’s registration from Ed D to MPhil, or in exceptional cases, withdrawing a student.

3.11 In cases where a student has been granted extra time to complete, the Programme

Administrator shall ensure that further progress reports are sent out every 6 months to the supervisory team and, when completed, are made available to the Programme Assessment Board.

3.12 In cases where the Programme Assessment Board decides that a candidate’s progress is

unsatisfactory and that withdrawal is required, the candidate shall be informed of this fact, in writing, by the Chair of the Programme Assessment Board. The candidate shall be given a reasonable timescale (not normally less than 3 months) for improvements to be made. Where these improvements are not made by the stated date, the candidate shall be informed in writing by the Programme Assessment Board that a decision has been made to end the registration.

3.13 A candidate may use the Complaints and Grievance Procedure for Research Students in

cases where he/she believes that the decision to terminate the registration is unjustified. These Procedures are included in this book of regulations.

3.14 Where a candidate decides to withdraw from the programme, he/she shall communicate this

fact in writing to the Programme Administrator. 3.15 A candidate shall pay such fees as may be determined by the University and which are

notified to the candidate at the beginning of each academic year. 4. Supervision and Academic Support 4.1 In Stage 2 of the programme, a candidate shall be supported by two supervisors. The

principal supervisor shall be a research-active staff member of the School of Life Long Learning and Education and shall be responsible for ensuring that administrative procedures in respect of the programme are followed. The other supervisor may be drawn from the School of Life Long Learning and Education, or another School of the University (where appropriate). Alternatively (or additionally), the other supervisor may be an external professional practitioner. The particular combination of the supervisory team shall vary according to the research project(s). The Programme Approval Panel is responsible for providing candidates with an appropriate supervisory team.

4.2 Any subsequent proposal for a change in the supervisory team shall be made to the

Programme Approval Panel. 4.2 The supervisory team shall agree with the candidate the amount of time and normal pattern of

contact and written work as part of a learning agreement. 4.3 The candidate shall be responsible for establishing initial and ongoing contact with the

supervisory team and for delivering written work on time throughout the programme, as part of the learning agreement.

4.4 A candidate registered as a candidate for the degree of PhD, D Prof, MPhil or M Prof at

Middlesex University shall be ineligible to act as principal supervisor of a candidate registered for the degree of Ed D (or MPhil). He/she may be eligible to be on the supervisory team of an Ed D (or M Phil) candidate with the approval of the University’s Research and Research Degrees Committee.

6

12/1/07 10:11 7 of 21

5. Submission of Research Assignments for Assessment The modular Doctor of Education programme is based upon the construction of research assignments of various kinds for each module. 5.1 Research assignments shall be accepted in various formats. The format shall be that it best

achieves the aims of the research project and display the level 5 criteria. In addition to text, can include text based, audio-visual material and other such non-text sources, provided these are approved by the Programme Approval Panel.

5.2 All research assignments should contain a contextual statement, methodological outline and

critique. 5.3 All research and assignments shall be submitted in English, except with the approval of the

Programme Approval Panel. 5.4 All text-based research assignments shall be presented in Standard Format for Written Work

as given in the Programme Handbook in respect of headings, subheadings, tables, diagrams, footnotes, and appendices.

5.5 All assignment material presented for examination shall acknowledge published or other

sources consulted (including an appropriate bibliography) and any assistance received. 5.6 There shall be an abstract of approximately 300 words bound into each research assignments,

which shall provide a synopsis stating the nature and scope of the work undertaken and of the original contribution to professional knowledge and development.

5.7 The length of each module assignment shall be as indicated by the appropriate module

description and shall be subject to approval by the Programme Approval Panel. A word count shall be included at the end of the text.

5.8 In the final stage, the “synthesis of the research projects”, which argues for the coherence of

the completed works, shall be bound in accordance with the requirements as set out in the Programme Handbook.

5.9 A candidate shall submit two copies of each assignment for assessment, both of which shall be retained by the University. 5.10 All work shall be submitted by the assessment deadline published in the module handbook.

Work shall be delivered by hand or shall be sent by recorded delivery as specified in the Programme Handbook. In all cases, a receipt must be obtained and retained by the candidate as proof of submission.

5.11 A candidate shall be responsible for ensuring that the work for his/her Public Exhibition and

Validation is presented by the date given, and in the manner and format agreed, by the Programme Approval Panel.

6. Stage Three: Thesis Examination and Validation (EDU 5401) – General 6.1 Following the completion of the research project(s) phase, final part of the Ed.D programme

consists of a single module with three parts under the title “Thesis Examination and Validation”. The parts are:

• Creation of a synthesis of the research projects.

7

12/1/07 10:11 8 of 21

• A public exhibition and validation. • Presentation to an academic audience and oral examination.

The total length of each element shall not normally exceed 6000 words in length or equivalent. For

the award of the Ed D, candidates must satisfy the examiners in respect of all three elements. In order to ensure that a candidate has a conceptual understanding of the integration of all elements of his/her studies, the same examiners shall assess all the three elements of work for each candidate.

6.2 There shall normally be a presentation by, and oral examination for, a candidate (6.1) unless

for reasons of sickness, disability, or comparable valid cause, the Programme Assessment Board is satisfied that a candidate would be under serious disadvantage if required to be assessed by these means. In such cases, an alternative form of assessment or modification to these oral procedures may be approved. Such approval shall not be given on the grounds that the candidate’s knowledge of the language in which the research project(s) is presented is inadequate.

6.3 The presentation and oral examination shall be held in the UK. 6.4 The Programme Assessment Board shall make a decision on the examination reports

submitted by the examiners in respect of a candidate. The Programme Assessment Board shall make recommendations to the Research and Research Degrees Committee. The power to confer a degree shall rest with the Academic Board of the University.

6.5 The Programme Assessment Board shall ensure that examinations are conducted, and the

recommendations of the examiners, are presented wholly in accordance with the University’s regulations and procedures. In any instance where the Research and Research Degrees Committee is made aware of a failure to comply with all the procedures of the examination process, it may declare the examination null and void and appoint new examiners.

6.6 Where evidence of academic misconduct in the preparation of research project work or other

irregularities in the conduct of the examination come to light subsequent to the recommendation of the examiners, the Research and Research Degrees Committee shall consider the matter, if necessary in consultation with the examiners, and take appropriate action.

6.7 Candidates submitting for the degree of M Phil shall be exempt from the module “Thesis

Examination and Validation”. They shall undertake a viva but shall not be required to give a presentation to an academic audience.

6.8 Paragraphs 6.2 to 6.6 shall apply to candidates submitting for the degree of M Phil. 7. Examination Procedures 7.1 The candidate’s principal supervisor shall propose on the appropriate form the arrangements

for the examination to the Research and Research Degrees Committee for approval. This shall be done no later than three months before the date of the examination. The examination shall not take place until the examination arrangements have been approved. In special circumstances, the Research and Research Degrees Committee may act directly to appoint and arrange the examination of a candidate. This regulation applies to both Ed D and M Phil candidates.

7.2 The candidate’s principal supervisor shall propose on the appropriate form the arrangements

for the candidate’s Public Exhibition and Validation to Research and Research Degrees

8

12/1/07 10:11 9 of 21

Committee for approval. This shall be done simultaneously with the proposal for approval of examination arrangements.

7.3 The Programme Administrator shall make known to the candidate the procedure to be

followed for the submission of the assignment for the “Synthesis of the Research projects” assignment, and the other Stage 3 research project(s), and any conditions to be satisfied before the candidates may be considered eligible for examination.

7.4 The Programme Administrator shall, in conjunction with the candidate and supervisory team,

make the appropriate arrangements for the Public Exhibition and Validation, and send all the approved persons the relevant feedback report forms. The feedback report forms shall give a date by which they should be returned to the Programme Administrator’s Office. This shall normally be in advance of the oral examination.

7.5 The Programme Administrator shall make the appropriate arrangements for the presentation

to an academic audience and oral examination. 7.6 The Programme Administrator shall notify the candidate, the examiners, and any observers of

the date, time, and venue of the presentation and oral examination. 7.7 Examiners should not normally have less than 4 weeks to read and evaluate the candidate’s

research project work and “The Synthesis of the Research projects”, assignment. In cases, where it has been agreed that the submission should be of greater length than normal (for example, a group research project) the examiners should be permitted extra time to read and evaluate the work. The examiners should be invited to state the time they need. This regulation applies to candidates submitting for the degree of MPhil.

7.8 The Programme Administrator shall send copies of a candidate’s assignments to each

examiner together with the examiner’s preliminary examination report form, and the University’s regulations, and shall ensure that the examiners are properly briefed as to their duties and as to the fact that the examination report forms should be completed independently and without consultation. This regulation applies to candidates submitting for the degree of M Phil.

7.9 The Programme Administrator shall ensure that all examiners have completed and returned

their preliminary examination report forms to the University before the presentation and oral examination. This regulation applies to candidates submitting for the degree of M Phil.

8. The Candidate’s Responsibilities in the Examination Process 8.1 The candidate shall ensure that all the assignments are submitted and received by the

Programme Administrator by the specified date. 8.2 The final submission of work for examination for the EdD is at the sole discretion of the

candidate. While a candidate would be unwise to submit work for assessment against the advice of the supervisory team, it is his/her right to do so. Equally, candidates should not assume that a supervisor’s agreement guarantees the award of the degree.

8.3 Where a candidate submits research project work the content of which has not been approved

for submission by the supervisory team, or which is directly against the advice of the supervisory team, the principal supervisor shall make known this fact in writing to the Programme Administrator, immediately the submission is made. The Programme Administrator shall inform only the Chair of the Programme Assessment Board of this fact, but not the examiners or anybody else involved in the assessment/evaluation.

9

12/1/07 10:11 10 of 21

8.4 The candidate shall take no part in the arrangements of the examination and shall have no formal contact with the examiners between their appointment as examiners and the presentation and oral examination.

8.5 The candidate shall ensure that the format for presentation of the Research Project work

and ”The Synthesis of the Research” is in accordance with the requirements set out in the Programme Handbook.

8.6 Regulations 8.1 to 8.5 apply to candidates submitting for the degree of M Phil with the proviso

that such candidates are exempt from the “Synthesis of the Research Projects”. 9. Public Exhibition and Validation 9.1 The Public Exhibition shall communicate the work carried out, its results, and its impact. The purpose of the exhibition is to disseminate the research to a wider audience and to undertake an evaluation of public reaction to the ideas. “Public” can be interpreted widely as non-academic, peers, colleagues, and stakeholders, within and outside of the institution. 9.2 The Public Exhibition may take many forms, both physical and electronic, including singularly

or in combination, but not limited to, for example: • a web site or web log; • a video or DVD; • a physical display; • a conference; and • a podcast, sound recording or similar audio presentation.

9.3 The exhibition should be accessible to a public audience in a selected form and venue

appropriate to the dissemination and presentation of the research. This might include: • the University in for example “Open Days”; • school, LEA and community premises; • in shopping centres or other public spaces; • in electronic or digital media; and • at appropriate public conferences.

9.4 The Public Exhibition shall be made accessible to an appropriate public audience such as:

• staff employed in education, children’s and other services; • stakeholders, including Students, Parents, Governors, and the Community.

The public exhibition has to be made available to the programme leader or their delegated representative for assessment purposes. 9.5 All those accessing or visiting the Public Exhibition shall be asked to complete a feedback

form which shall be passed to the Programme Assessment Administrator for copying to the candidate and the examiners.

9.6 The candidate shall write a report on the feedback from this exercise, the lessons learned and

how those accessing or visiting the Public Exhibition have reacted to the ideas. This report shall not exceed 6000 words (forming part of the appropriate module).

9.7 This report shall be made available, with all other assignments for the Ed.D, for assessment by

the examiners. 10. Oral Examination and Presentation to an Academic Audience.

10

12/1/07 10:11 11 of 21

The presentation to an academic audience is a development of and equivalent to the Oral examination in a PhD programme The developments are that there may be an additional audience of interested parties who may be observers, and that the Oral examination and discussion will be preceded by a presentation of the Ed.D research. 10.1 Presentation to an Academic Audience and Examination Board 10.1.1 The academic audience shall normally be a minimum of 4 persons and not exceed 10

persons. and would normally include as the exam board; • an appointed chair; • external examiner (s); and • internal examiner.

And as invited observers, possibly:

• module leader and/or supervisor; • programme leader or principle supervisor; • programme team members; • Dean of LLE or his/her representative; • Director of Research LLE or his/her representative; or • invited specialist academic and professional guests.

10.1.2 The presentation shall normally be of approximately 20 minutes duration and candidates

may use audio-visual means of their choice. 10.1.3 The academic audience shall be given the chance to question the candidate following

his/her presentation. 10.1.4 The presentation shall normally be held at Middlesex University or at the candidate’s

employing organisation by agreement with the Programme Leader. Examiners and Chair The Role of Chair 10.2.1 The Ed D presentation and oral examination shall be chaired. The Chair shall be

independent of the candidate’s supervisory team and shall normally be a senior academic with experience of examining research degrees or research-based degrees (such as M Phil, PhD, M Prof, D Prof, Ed D). The Chair shall not examine the candidate. The Chair shall ensure that the examiners are fully appraised of, and follow, the regulations and procedures of the University relating to Ed D examining.

10.2.2 A candidate shall be examined by at least two and normally not more than three examiners. 10.2.3 An exam board may consist of: (a) two external examiners; or (b) one external examiner and one internal examiner; or (c) two external examiners and one internal examiner.

There shall not be more than one internal examiner.

11

12/1/07 10:11 12 of 21

10.2.4 The candidate’s principal supervisor or supervisor shall attend the oral examination as an adviser to the Exam Board.

10.2.5 An internal examiner shall be independent of the candidate’s supervisory team and shall

not be known to the candidate in a professional capacity. 10.2.6 An external examiner shall be independent of both the University and shall not be known to

the candidate in a professional capacity. Former members of staff shall not normally be approved until three years after the termination of their employment with the University.

10.2.7 The Research and Research Degrees Committee shall ensure that the same external

examiner is not approved so frequently that, in its opinion, his/her familiarity with the programme might prejudice objective judgment. In the case of a number of Ed D candidates undertaking research projects on a similar topic, any particular examiner shall not normally examine more than 3 candidates in the same assessment round.

10.2.8 Examiners shall be actively engaged in research and/or professional development in the

general area of the candidate’s research project(s) and, where practicable, have experience as a specialist in the topic(s) to be examined.

10.2.9 Regulations 10.2.1 to10.2.7 above apply both to Ed D and MPhil candidates with the

exception that in 10.2.1, MPhil candidates do not give a presentation. 10.2.10 For the degree of Ed D, the external examiner (or at least one of the two external

examiners in cases where there are two) shall have substantial experience (that is normally three or more previous examinations) of examining PhD, D Prof, Ed D degrees.

10.2.11 For the degree of M Phil, the external examiner (or at least one of the two external

examiners in cases where there are two) shall have substantial experience (that is three or more previous examinations) of examining M Phil, M Prof, or MA (by research) degrees.

10.2.12 No candidate registered for the Ed D, PhD, D Prof, or M Phil, or M Prof shall act as an

examiner for other candidates’ research project work. 10.2.13 The candidate’s presentation shall be made in English, and the oral examination conducted in English except where another language has been agreed by the Programme Approval Panel. 10.2.14 The University shall determine and pay the fees and expenses of external examiners. 11. First Examination For the degree of Ed D 11.1 For the degree of Ed D, each examiner shall read and examine the assignments. He/she shall

read and examine the candidate’s report of the feedback from the Public Exhibition and, where practicable, access or attend the Public Exhibition and validation. Each examiner shall then submit, on the appropriate forms, independent preliminary assessment reports on (1) the research project work (including phase one); 2 the synthesis of the research, and (3) the report on the Public Exhibition to the Programme Administrator before the Presentation and oral examination is held.

11.2 In completing these preliminary reports, each examiner shall consider whether these elements

of the work provisionally satisfy the requirements for the degree and the level 5 descriptors,

12

12/1/07 10:11 13 of 21

and (where possible) he/she shall make an appropriate provisional recommendation subject to the outcome of the presentation and oral examination.

11.3 Following the candidate’s presentation and oral examination, the examiners shall, where they

are in agreement, submit on the appropriate form, a joint report and recommendation relating to the award of the degree. This shall be given to the Chair of the examination for forwarding to the Programme Administrator. The preliminary reports and joint recommendation shall together provide sufficiently detailed comments on the quality of the work to enable the Programme Assessment Board to satisfy itself that the recommendation chosen in paragraph 11.4 below is correct.

Where the examiners are not in agreement, separate reports and recommendations shall be

submitted. The recommendations shall be made on the appropriate form. 11.4 Following the completion of the presentation and oral examination, the Programme

Assessment Board must recommend to the Research and Research Degrees Committee one of the following outcomes:

.1 assignments for the Ed D are deemed to be in combination at level 5 and passed and a

degree of Ed D be awarded; or

.2 some elements of the Ed.D are deemed to be at level 5 and minor amendments are required to specific elements within a specified timescale; or

.3 the candidate be awarded the degree of M Phil subject to the presentation of the

research project being amended to the satisfaction of the examiners. In the case of 11.4.2 to 11.4.6 inclusive and 11.4.3, the examiners shall prepare a written list

of amendments (for minor amendments) or revisions, which shall be passed to the candidate’s principal supervisor for forwarding to the candidate.

11.5 Examiners may indicate informally to the candidate their recommendations on the results of

the assessment but they shall make it clear that the decision rests with the Programme Assessment Board and the Research and Research Degrees Committee.

11.6 Where the examiners’ recommendations are not unanimous, the Programme Assessment

Board may: .1 accept a majority recommendation (provided that the majority recommendation includes

the external examiner); or .2 accept the recommendation of the external examiner; or .3 require the appointment of an additional external examiner. For the degree of M Phil 11.7 Each examiner shall read and examine the research project work and shall submit on the

appropriate form, an independent preliminary assessment report on it to the Programme Administrator before the oral examination is held. In completing the report, each examiner shall consider whether the research project work provisionally satisfies the University’s criteria and requirements for the award of this degree, and whether it satisfies the criteria for the award of module(s) (EDU 5301-6).

13

12/1/07 10:11 14 of 21

11.8 Following the candidate’s oral examination (and presentations) the examiners shall, where they are in agreement, submit on the appropriate form, a joint report and recommendation relating to the award of the degree. This shall be given to the Chair of the examination for forwarding to the Programme Administrator. The preliminary reports and joint recommendation shall together provide sufficiently detailed comments on the quality of the work to enable the Programme Assessment Board to satisfy itself that the recommendation chose in paragraph 11.9 below is correct.

Where the examiners are not in agreement, separate reports and recommendations shall be

submitted. The recommendations shall be made on the appropriate form. 11.9 Following completion of the oral examination, the Programme Assessment Board must

recommend to the Research and Research Degrees Committee one of the following outcomes:

.1 the research project be passed and the degree awarded; or .2 the research project be passed and the degree awarded subject to minor amendments

being made to the research project within a specified timescale; or .3 the research project be failed and the candidate be permitted to resubmit it within a

specified timescale, and with or without a further oral examination, as recommended by the examiners.

In the case that 11.9.2 or 11.9.3 applies, the examiners shall prepare a written list of

amendments (for minor amendments) or revisions (for a major reworking of the research project) which shall be passed to the candidate’s principal supervisor for forwarding to the candidate.

Examiners may indicate informally to the candidate their recommendation on the result of the

assessment but they shall make it clear that the decision rests with the Programme Assessment Board.

11.10 Where the examiners’ recommendations are not unanimous, the Programme Assessment

Board may: .1 accept a majority recommendation (provided that the majority includes the external

examiner; or .2 accept the recommendation of the external examiner; or .3 require the appointment of an additional external examiner. 12. Re-Examination 12.1 One re-examination shall normally be permitted by the Programme Assessment Board subject

to the following conditions: (a) A candidate who fails to satisfy the examiners at the first examination in respect of one

or more elements of the assessment may, on the recommendation of the examiners, and with the approval of the Programme Assessment Board, be permitted to be re-examined.

14

12/1/07 10:11 15 of 21

(b) The Chair of the Exam Board shall provide the Programme Assessment Board with written guidance on the deficiencies of the assessed work, and the Programme Administrator shall forward this guidance to the candidate.

(c) The candidate shall submit for re-examination in not normally less than three months

and not normally more than one calendar year from the date of the oral examination. Where there are good reasons, the Programme Approval Panel may approve an extension of time.

(d) The Programme Approval Panel may require that an additional examiner be appointed

for re-examination. For the Ed D 12.2 The focus of the re-examination shall normally be on that element of the candidate’s work that

was judged unsatisfactory at the first examination. 12.3 Where the candidate’s performance at the first presentation and oral examination was

satisfactory, but one or more of the elements (the research project work, or the synthesis, or the public exhibition and validation) was judged unsatisfactory, and the examiners, on re-examination, certify that the revised element(s) meets the criteria and standard for the award, the Assessment Board may exempt the candidate from a further presentation and oral examination.

12.4 Where the candidate’s performance at the first presentation and oral examination was

unsatisfactory, and one or more of the elements (the research project work, or the synthesis or the Public Exhibition and Validation) was also judged unsatisfactory, the examiners shall re-assess the element (or elements) that was judged unsatisfactory and the candidate at a further presentation and oral examination. Normally an element that was judged satisfactory on the first assessment shall not be re-assessed.

12.5 Where all the elements of the candidate’s work (the research project work, the synthesis, and

the public exhibition and validation) were judged satisfactory at the first assessment but the performance (the presentation and oral examination) was unsatisfactory, the candidate shall be assessed orally without being requested to revise and re-submit any of the elements.

12.6 In the case of re-assessment under regulation 12.3 or 12.4 above, each examiner shall

assess the revised element(s) and submit on the appropriate form, an independent, preliminary assessment report on it, to the Programme Administrator, before the presentation and oral examination is held. In completing the preliminary report, each examiner shall state whether the revised element(s) satisfies the requirements of the degree and, in the case of 12.3 whether a further presentation and oral examination shall be held. The examiners shall make their assessment only on those issues that were raised in the first examination and which were made known to the candidate in the written report on the deficiencies of the work (see 11.3 above).

12.7 Following the re-examination of one (or more) elements under 12.3 or 12.4, or following the

presentation and oral examination under 12.5, the examiners shall, where they are in agreement, submit on the appropriate form, a joint report and recommendation relating to the award of the degree to the Chair of the examination for forwarding to the Programme Administrator. The preliminary report and joint recommendation of the examiners shall together provide sufficiently detailed comment on the scope and quality of the work to enable the Programme Assessment Board to satisfy itself that the recommendation chosen in 12.8 below is correct.

15

12/1/07 10:11 16 of 21

Where the examiners are not in agreement, separate reports and recommendations shall be submitted. The recommendations shall be made on the appropriate form.

12.8 Following completion of the re-examination, the Programme Assessment Board must

recommend to Research and Research Degrees Committee one of the following options: .1 the revised element(s) of the work (the research project(s), and/or the synthesis, and/or

the public exhibition and validation (as appropriate), be passed and the degree be awarded;

.2 the revised element(s) of the work be passed and the degree awarded subject to minor

amendments being made to one or more of the elements (as appropriate); .3 the revised elements be failed but, exceptionally, a further opportunity for re-assessment

be granted within a specified timescale either in respect of one (or more) of the elements, or in respect of the presentation and oral examination, or in respect of both;

.4 the candidate be awarded the degree of M Phil subject to the criteria for this degree

being satisfied, and the research project work being amended to the satisfaction of the examiners;

.5 the research project be failed and no further assessment be permitted. Examiners may indicate informally their recommendation on the result of the re-examination to

the candidate but they shall make it clear that the decision rests with the Programme Assessment Board.

12.9 Where the Programme Assessment Board decides that the degree be not awarded, the

examiners shall prepare an agreed statement of the deficiencies of the work and the reason for their recommendation which shall be forwarded to the candidate by the Programme Administrator.

12.10 Where the examiners’ recommendations are not unanimous, the Programme Assessment

Board may: .1 accept a majority recommendation (provided the majority recommendation includes the

external examiner); or .2 accept the recommendation of the external examiner; or .3 require the appointment of an additional external examiner. 12.11 Where an additional examiner is appointed under 12.10.3 above, he/she shall prepare an

independent preliminary report on the basis of the submitted works and, if considered necessary, may request a further presentation and oral examination. On receipt of the report from the additional examiner, the Programme Assessment Board shall complete the examination as set out in 12.8.

12.12 In all cases where a re-submission for Ed D is failed, a panel of enquiry shall be set up to

investigate the reasons. This shall report its conclusions to the Director of Research and Postgraduate Studies for the School of Life Long Learning and Education, and appropriate action shall be agreed and implemented.

16

12/1/07 10:11 17 of 21

For the M Phil 12.13 Re-examination for the award of M Phil shall be open to those candidates who submitted for

the degree of M Phil at the first examination, and to those who submitted for the degree of Ed D but to whom regulation 12. 8. 4 above was applied by the Programme Assessment Board. Additionally it may also be open to other Ed D candidates who find that they are unable to complete all the revisions required following the first examination for the Ed D award.

In accordance with the requirements for the award of the University’s degree of M Phil, the

focus shall be upon the writing of a satisfactory research project and the defence of that research project at an oral examination. Thus, candidates who were first examined for Ed D and who are later re-examined for the M Phil, shall not normally be required to present a revised public exhibition and validation in cases where this was judged unsatisfactory at the first examination. Similarly, they shall not normally be required to revise their synthesis, in cases where this was judged unsatisfactory at first examination. All candidates being re-examined for M Phil may be required to give a presentation as part of their oral examination but this shall be only to the duly appointed examiners and observers.

12.14 Where the candidate’s performance in the first oral examination was satisfactory but the

research project was unsatisfactory and the examiners, on re-examination, certify that the revised research project is satisfactory, the Programme Assessment Board may exempt the candidate from a further oral examination.

12.15 Where the candidate’s performance at the first oral examination was unsatisfactory and the

research project was also unsatisfactory, any re-examination shall include both re-examination of the research project and an oral examination.

12.16 Where, at the first examination, the candidate’s research project was satisfactory but the

candidate’s performance in the oral examination was unsatisfactory, the candidate shall be re-examined orally without being requested to revise and resubmit the research project.

12.17 In the case of re-assessment under regulation 12.14 and 12.15 above, each examiner shall

assess the revised research project and submit on the appropriate form, an independent and preliminary report on it, to the Programme Administrator, before the presentation and oral examination is held. In completing the preliminary report, each examiner shall state whether the revised research project satisfies the requirements of the degree and, in the case of 12.14 whether a further oral examination shall be held. The examiners shall make their assessment only on those issues that were raised in the first examination and which were made known to the candidate in the written report on the deficiencies of the work (see 11.9 above).

12.18 In cases where an oral examination has been held (12.16, and in some instances in 12.14),

the examiners shall, where they are in agreement, submit on the appropriate form, a joint report and recommendation relating to the award of the degree, to the Chair of the examination for forwarding to the Programme Administrator. The preliminary report and joint recommendation of the examiners shall together provide sufficiently detailed comment on the scope and quality of the work to enable the Programme Assessment Board to satisfy itself that the recommendation chosen in 12.19 below is correct.

Where the examiners are not in agreement, separate reports and recommendations shall be

submitted. The recommendations shall be made on the appropriate form. 12.19 Following completion of the re-examination for M Phil, the Programme Assessment Board

must recommend to Research and Research Degrees Committee, one of the following options:

17

12/1/07 10:11 18 of 21

.1 the revised research project be passed and the degree awarded; or .2 the revised research project be passed and the degree awarded subject to minor

amendments being made to the research project; or .3 the degree be failed but, exceptionally a further opportunity for re-assessment be

granted within a specified timescale, either in respect of the research project or in respect of the oral examination, or in respect of both; or

.4 the research project be failed and no further assessment be permitted. Examiners may indicate informally their recommendation on the result of the re-examination to

the candidate but they shall make it clear that the decision rests with the Programme Assessment Board.

12.20 Where the Programme Assessment Board decides that the degree be not awarded, the

examiners shall prepare an agreed statement of the deficiencies of the work and the reason for the recommendation which shall be forwarded to the candidate by the Programme Administrator.

12.21 Where the examiners recommendations are not unanimous, the Programme Assessment

Board may: .1 accept a majority recommendation (provided the majority recommendation includes the

external examiner); or .2 accept the recommendation of the external examiner; or .3 require the appointment of an additional external examiner. 12.22 Where an additional examiner is appointed under 12.21.3, he/she shall prepare an

independent, preliminary report on the basis of the work submitted and, if considered necessary, may request a further presentation and oral examination. On receipt of the report from the additional examiner, the Programme Assessment Board shall complete the examination as set out in 12.19.

12.23 In all cases where a re-submission for M Phil is failed, a panel of enquiry shall be set up to

investigate the reasons. This shall report its conclusions to the Director of Research and Postgraduate Studies for the School of Life Long Learning and Education, and appropriate action shall be agreed and implemented.

13 THE RESEARCH PROJECTS 13.1 Following the award of the degree EdD or MPhil, the candidate shall have two copies of the

research projects bound and submitted to the Programme Administrator. Candidates who have been awarded the EdD degree shall have all the research projects submitted for Stages 2 and 3 of the degree bound. Candidates who have been awarded the MPhil shall their Stage 2 research project work bound. These copies shall become the property of the University, but the copyright in the project shall be vested in the candidate.

13.2 The copies of the research projects shall be presented and bound in accordance with the

regulations incorporated in these Regulations as the Appendix. 13.3 Following receipt of the two bound copies of the project, the Programme Administrator shall:

18

12/1/07 10:11 19 of 21

.1 lodge one copy in the University Library; and .2 lodge the second copy in the School of Arts and Education Research Office. 13.4 A candidate shall not normally be awarded a degree certificate until the two bound copies of

the research projects have been received by the University. 13.5 An EdD candidate who wishes to participate in the British Library Doctoral Theses Scheme

should forward additionally to the Programme Administrator one copy of his/her research projects in perfect binding (see 14)

14 THE BRITISH LIBRARY DOCTORAL SCHEME

The University is a member of the British Library Doctoral Theses Scheme. All Doctoral

candidates who wish to participate in the Scheme will be required to sign a Doctoral Thesis Agreement form which covers the use that the British Library may make of a doctoral work.

Candidates who wish to participate in the Scheme will be required to submit one additional copy of their project to the Programme Administrator for the use of British Library. This copy is required in perfect-binding.

15 REVIEW OF AN EXAMINATION DECISION

Candidates who wish to appeal against the decision of the Programme Assessment Board and Research and Research Degrees Committee should consult the Appeals Regulations available at: http://www.mdx.ac.uk/research/application/docs/regs_a.pdf The Appeals Regulations are at Section E of the document. Note that the Appeals Regulations cover only the examination. There is a Complaints and Grievance Procedure for other matters, at Section F of the above website.

19

12/1/07 10:11 20 of 21

Appendix Presentation and Binding Requirements for the Final Format (Post Examination) 1 For EdD graduates, all research projects presented for Stages 2 and 3 of the degree shall be bound. For MPhil graduates, all research projects presented for Stage 2 shall be bound. 2. Research projects should normally be in A4 format. The Research and Research Degrees

Committee may give permission for a research project to be submitted in another format where it is satisfied that the contents of the project can be better expressed in that format. A candidate using a format larger than A4 should note that the production of microfiche copies and full-size enlargement may not be feasible;

3 Copies of the research projects shall be presented in a permanent and legible form either in

typescript or print; where copies are produced by photocopying processes, these shall be of a permanent nature; where word processor and printing devices are used, the printer shall be capable of producing text of a satisfactory quality; the size of character used in the main text, including displayed matter and notes, shall not be less than 2.0mm for capitals and 1.5mm for x-height (that is, the height of lower-case x).

3. The research projects shall be printed on the recto side of the page only; the paper shall be white and within the range 70 g/m2 to 100 g/m2; 4. The margin at the left-hand binding edge of the page shall not be less than 40mm; other margins shall not be less than 15mm; 5. Double or one-and-a-half spacing shall be used in the typescript except for indented quotations or footnotes where single spacing may be used; 5. Pages shall be numbered consecutively through the main text including photographs and/or diagrams included as whole pages; 6. The title page shall give the following information: the theme of the research projects the full name of the author; that the degree is awarded by the University; the award for which the thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of its

requirements; the Collaborating Establishment/s, and the month and year of submission.

7. Where a number of research projects have been presented for Stages 2 and 3 of the EdD degree, it may be appropriate to have a contents page listing the titles of all these. Such a contents page should be placed immediately after the title page.

The University library copy shall be bound as follows: 1. The binding shall be of a fixed type so that leaves cannot be removed or replaced; the front and rear boards shall have sufficient rigidity to support the weight of the work when standing upright; and 2. in at least 24pt type the outside front board shall bear the theme of the work, the name and initials of the candidate, the qualification, and the year of submission; the same information (excluding the title of the work) shall be shown on the spine of the work, reading downwards.

20

12/1/07 10:11 21 of 21

21