External Review Report. Department of Curriculum and Instruction Graduate Programs Purdue University

Transcription

1 1 External Review Report Department of Curriculum and Instruction Graduate Programs Purdue University By Dr. Jon E. Pedersen, Ph.D. University of Nebraska-Lincoln And Dr. Elizabeth K. Wilson, Ph.D. The University of Alabama May, 2014

2 2 Introduction The Department of Curriculum and Instruction (EDCI) is one of two departments in the College of Education at Purdue University. Over the last two decades educator preparation at Purdue University has undergone a new emphasis, which allowed the education programs to evolve from a department into a school, and then culminate with the establishment of the College of Education in As part of Purdue University s mission of Discovery, Learning, and Engagement, the College of Education seeks to to prepare exceptional teachers and intellectual leaders; to improve educational outcomes through inspired teaching, research and public service; and to advance scientific discovery related to learning and human development (EDCI, 2014, p. 3) During the last decade, the EDCI department has been working to establish its identity and fulfill its mission for the college, school, and academic communities. The focus of this mission is to aspire to collaborate on issues associated with the teaching and learning process by linking theory and practice in a wide variety of educational contexts and value community, collaboration, diversity, inquiry, and reflection (EDCI, 2014, p. 7). A Department Head and program coordinators who represent disciplinary areas lead the department. The department is comprised of four committees: Faculty Affairs Committee, Primary Committee, Elementary Teacher Education Committee, and Graduate Committee. In recent years, the Department of Curriculum and Instruction has worked to address strategically the university s mission of discovery, learning, and engagement. Most notably, there has been a tremendous increase in research inquiry and

3 3 productivity as evidenced by the surge in grant funding, including a STEM presence nationally and in the campus community. The department has been very productive in grant procurement with $12.7 million in up from $3.9 million in The department/college has made impressive gains in U.S. News and World Report rankings improving from a 68 ranking in 2007 to a 32 in the 2014 rankings. Of the 55 faculty in the department, 13 are journal editors and 23 serve on editorial boards. In addition to responsibility for 80% of the undergraduates in the college, the EDCI department offers eight programs at the graduate level. When the Indiana state legislature discontinued financially rewarding teachers who completed advanced degrees with pay raises, a long-term group of master s degree students almost disappeared completely. In response, after internal discussions of declining enrollments, the department decided to address the changing needs of its potential audience by focusing on content that meets 21 st century learning needs and a providing an effective way to deliver high quality content to the needs of their audience. The department developed a partnership with an outside vendor to assist with recruitment and delivery of the Learning Design and Technology program. During this time, funding and interest stimulated for STEM programs also increased enrollment. STEM related programs such as STEM goes Rural (SGR) and majors in specific disciplines have attributed to another, yet smaller increase in graduate students. For instance, SGR includes 33 Woodrow Wilson Teaching Fellows in a master s degree program. The LDT and STEM efforts have resulted in a tremendous increase in master s degrees awarded for the EDCI Department. Specifically, during the year, there were 18 master s degrees

4 4 awarded across all programs in Curriculum and Instruction; in , 95 degrees were awarded with 55 MA degrees awarded in Learning Design and Technology. As expected for a Department of Curriculum and Instruction, faculty and students in EDCI are engaged in several initiatives in K-12 schools. These activities provide faculty and students with the opportunity collaborate with K-12 educators, contribute to schools through funded projects, and learn from the teachers and students in the schools. The Center for Literacy Education and Research (CLEAR) which focuses on professional development provided 496 hours of programming and served 1,137 teachers and 10, 228 students. The Ackerman Center for Democratic Citizenship made impacted 4,600 teachers, students and community members. While there are many strengths in this department, there are areas that seem to be challenges, which should be examined further. It appears, through discussions with students, review of curriculum, and discussions with faculty that the department operates in silos designated by disciplinary areas. This has resulted in low enrollment, specialized courses and academic programs, which do not appear to operate under a collective mission; rather, each program has developed its own identity. For instance, each program has developed separate selection criteria, competencies, and assessments, which pose difficulties for the department to function as a cohesive unit. The notion of silos was also made apparent when the graduate students spoke about their graduate studies and considered themselves students in their discipline (e.g., Literacy) rather than the EDCI.

5 5 How might the department leverage its strengths, the strengths of Purdue University, and national trends to increase its national visibility and reputation? Purdue University and the Department of Curriculum and Instruction have a unique opportunity to capitalize on several strengths that the university offers as well as strengths evident within the department. As a public university and a land-grant university, Purdue is situated to build substantially on its mission to promote agricultural and the mechanical arts. Purdue has a very well established national and international reputation within these areas specifically in agriculture, engineering, technology and the sciences. This emphasis and already established area of recognition for Purdue has led to a proposed hiring of 300 new faculty in engineering alone. It is apparent that resources and faculty lines will continue to be funneled into these areas. This trend, science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) has also played out on the national stage as a key and sustainable initiative. Federal funding for STEM has maintained a relatively high level of support even through the tough economical times of the past 5 years. The National Science Foundation (NSF), the Institute for Educational Sciences (IES), the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and the National Institutes for Health (NIH) are but four funding agencies that continue to support STEM at a relatively high level. It is impressive that EDCI has taken advantage of these funding opportunities and has built a reputation for STEM within the department. However, it will be critical to EDCI to continue to develop, nurture and grow collaborations in all of the aforementioned areas in order to sustain growth and reputation of their programs. Federal funding agencies have laid the groundwork indicating that they are interested in

6 6 multi-discipline systems based work. EDCI needs to build on the successful programs that already exist (e.g., NSF funded work such as SLED, Making Sense of Global Warming and Climate Change, and Examining Engineering Perceptions, Aspirations and Identify Among Young Girls). In particular the STEM Goes Rural project is a unique program that provides assistance in developing STEM teachers for rural areas of the state. The work that is done within this program including the interdisciplinary nature of the program is a model that is worthy of replication throughout the nation. It will be through collaborations such as these that EDCI will be able to continue to grow and leverage its position within the university, state, and nation. In addition to leveraging partnerships and collaborations with high visibility within the university, EDCI should also look internally (within their own department) for examples of excellence and use these as models for other programs. As previously noted, the Learning Design and Technology masters program an on-line program has dramatically increased its enrollment. The program seeks to engage students in learning how to prepare effective instructional materials based on the context in which the student works. The program has effectively recruited teachers, technology coordinators (for school districts) and business and industry professionals (according to EDIC interviews, approximately 60% of those enrolled are from industry, not education). This is a unique and prime example of how the department can build a reputation from within. That is not to say that all programs should be on-line. However, all programs should continue to rethink how they will build their student base and build on the success of an existing program within EDCI. We would strongly recommend that

7 7 EDCI continue to push the envelope and think outside of the box of the traditional master/doctoral program and examine ways in which EDCI can tap into local, state, regional, national and international student populations. EDCI Course Staffing and Organization The Department of Curriculum and Instruction provides eight graduate programs with courses designated by disciplines. As a result, several courses are offered with low enrollments. By examining courses and considering a thematic approach to the curriculum, rather than a disciplinary approach, the department can utilize the expertise of faculty in a more efficient way by developing, offering, and teaching courses that are multidisciplinary in nature rather than narrow, singular in focus. The department should take the opportunity to examine all of its programs and to develop a recruitment plan to increase enrollment in all of the programs across the department. This department, which focuses on curriculum and pedagogy, also includes a position in qualitative research; this person teaches students from departments across the campus. The faculty and the college may be better served for this position to be located in the Educational Studies Department or for the university to recognize the need for qualitative research expertise so that the resources and faculty lines associate with the position be used for other purposes in EDCI.

8 8 How well are EDCI programs meeting the needs of today s students at both the masters and doctoral levels? Are graduate curricula in the department innovative and effective in achieving the desired learning outcomes? It is clear that EDCI has made substantial efforts to address the needs of the graduate students in the department. We recognize that changes were made (addition of two core courses) based on the recommendations from the last external review. However, it seems that there is still room for improvement and growth regarding programs within EDCI. As with many departments, the majority of students in the students are in masters programs (212) with far fewer (100) in doctoral programs. Over the course of the past five years, EDCI has seen a growth in the number of graduate students enrolled. The majority of the growth has occurred in one program, the Learning Design and Technology online masters program (an enrollment of 149 out of the 212 students). Doctoral programs have seen a slight decrease in the same time period. As mentioned previously, it was presented to us that the number of students in traditional teacher education programs has dried up due to a policy change at the state level. EDCI programs must reexamine how they will recruit students to continue to reach those needing professional development. With multiple alternatives available to these potential students, EDCI will need to think out of the box in new ways and create new pathways and opportunities to recruit students back to their programs. This is especially true when examining program enrollments. There are notable low enrollment programs within the department at the masters and doctoral levels. As we will address in other sections of this report, a concern is the ability of EDCI to address

9 9 the needs of students and continue to support all programs and the large number of course offerings while still doing justice to the students themselves within the limitations of current budgets. Regarding student services, we found that students and faculty praised the Office of Graduate Studies (OGS) at the college level. All indicated that the role that OGS plays with students is critical and very supportive. Students indicated (and we would concur) that there appears to be ample flexibility within the program areas for students to design a meaningful program of study. Some programs were highlighted in our conversations regarding their ability to successfully mentor students (e.g., Learning, Design and Technology). However, indications were that this is not true for all program areas. We question how effectively faculty are being used in the mentoring process with students. We would encourage EDCI to examine the totality of programs offered and how all programs are being supported with the limited funds available. Students suggested that courses are dropped because of lack of enrollment and not offered in a manner that is conducive to complete a degree in a timely fashion. However, they did recognize that changes have been made recently to begin to address this issue. Students suggested that faculty were phenomenal in the classroom, but many times unavailable and unreachable outside of the classroom. Some felt that faculty were inaccessible for master s degree students and had little incentive to work with students and want more assistance from faculty when in the role of teaching assistant. In addition, students felt that new faculty advisors (and others) were not as knowledgeable about programs and programmatic requirements as they should be. As

10 10 well, there is a concern from graduate students regarding the level of support including graduate assistantships, travel and other resources to complete their degrees. Students would also like to see more emphasis on the practical application of research at the master s level and support for more internships at all levels of graduate work. Students did feel that there was a concerted effort within EDCI to build a community for the graduate students and they indicated that the two new core courses and the Friday research symposiums were excellent opportunities to build cross-disciplinary relationships. However, they also suggested that more could be done to help build a sense of belonging to an academic community of graduate students. Specifically, students mentioned cohorts as a model for building cohesiveness within EDCI. Students had many positive comments regarding the course work offered within EDCI. They believed that the research and foundation components offered were cutting edge and provided them with the tools necessary to be successful in their chosen professional pathways. We recognize that the graduate competencies for EDCI are well articulated and seem to match well with most of the courses offered with each program. In addition, we believe the idea of core courses outlined in the report provide a solid common foundation for all students. We did recognize (from the data we were provided and interviews conducted) that even with the efforts to bring students together within and across programs, there is still a culture of independence (silos), which hampers the potential innovation, and effectiveness of a departmental degree. Course duplication and redundancy in offerings by programs are problematic at many levels.

11 11 Understandably programs do not want to loose their identify (nor do students want to loose the identity of their program of study) but more needs to be done to examine how programs can work together across discipline lines for the betterment of student experiences. Having said this, there is evidence that students are being provided with quality curricula. Students productivity through the Graduate Activity Research Tool (GART) is a good indication that students are achieving at a high level and meeting high expectations within their graduate work. What is the quality of research training and faculty mentoring in the department? We commend the faculty in EDCI who have increased their research productivity substantially during the last five years. Research and inquiry has received support from the college administration as well as the EDCI department head. The college leadership has assisted in the process of cross campus/cluster hires as well as grant writing support. The Discovery Learning Research Center has provided assistance and funding on STEM research projects. There is an overall sense of accomplishment and progress as indicated on the productivity and comparable institution data for U.S. News and World Report. As part of their efforts to continue this rise in research productivity, the faculty in the department have set a goal for each faculty member to publish two articles per year. Based on discussions with faculty, there appeared to be consensus that faculty discovery efforts are encouraged, supported, and rewarded by the college leadership. Specifically, the faculty recognized the research support provided by the Department Head and Associate Dean for Discovery & Faculty Development. Unfortunately, at both the

12 12 faculty and student levels, concerns were voiced about the lack of support provided for graduate student discovery efforts. What level of external funding is needed to support high quality graduate education in this department? How might that level of funding be achieved? Although the basis of this question is quite sound, answering it with specifics will prove to be difficult. Our recommendations herein are not an attempt to skirt the issue, rather there are key and identifiable issues that will need to be addressed by EDCI in order that EDCI can determine the level of funding necessary to support their graduate programs. A primary concern that we have regarding the graduate programs is the independent nature of the programs themselves. A common phrase we heard throughout our visit was programs as silos within EDCI. We must say up front that we support continuing to keep the identity of programs (especially those that have the potential to bring national and international recognition). However, there must be a balance between independence and the building of a systemic EDCI graduate degree (masters and doctoral). As we examine the programs that are offered (and as we mentioned previously) there are some that have strong growth and others that have very low enrollments. We would strongly suggest examining all programs and utilizing the sound and solid competencies developed as a means for considering the consolidation of programs offered while still meeting the needs of the students. The competencies that are in place could be used as a means to develop interdisciplinary themes around which programs can be developed. This realignment of programs would require a complete inventory and evaluation of all courses offered. We would

13 13 suggest to consider eliminating redundancy of courses offered and work not only within EDCI but also with EDS in achieving a manageable number of courses based on 1) the competencies and outcomes specified by the degree; 2) expertise of faculty throughout EDCI; 3) expertise of faculty in EDS; and, 4) expertise of faculty that have courtesy appointments and have the ability to teach courses for EDCI. This taking stock of the competencies and outcomes expected of students along with the resources currently available will assist in determining the level of funding necessary to support high quality graduate education. As this inventory and realignment is completed, EDCI then can focus on the needs of the department vis-à-vis funding for high quality graduate education. Priorities for EDCI should be developed based on existing revenue/funding sources and how EDCI will grow graduate programs. Based on the data provided, it would appear that approximately 60 of the 100 doctoral students are supported through funds in some manner (scholarships, teaching assistantships, research assistantships, administrative assistantships, pg. 22 of report). The levels of funding (as in most institutions) vary considerably. Given the budget constraints of EDCI, it would appear that it would be difficult to support additional graduate students, which limits your ability to recruit and grow your programs. As you indicate, you are attempting to support those programs in the department with low enrollments in an effort to recruit new students to the program. You also mention limited recruiting efforts associated with graduate programs. We would highly recommend that all programs develop sound and practical recruitment expectations and strategic plans for meeting these expectations. Your initial efforts in recruitment

14 14 have not yielded the results that you seek and we would encourage you to go beyond what you have already established. Recruitment can be accomplished in a number of ways including but not limited to: strategic hiring of faculty related to EDCI priority initiatives; developing a cohort system to move students through a sequence of courses and practical/clinical experiences; utilize a variety of mechanisms for promoting graduate programs such as open houses, special events, recruitment at national meetings, website improvements, and delivering your message about your programs where the students are instead of asking them to come to you. Once you establish a set of priorities and implement a plan of action for recruitment, you will then need to think about funding. A key question is how many graduate students would/will you fund and at what level. Given your current budget of approximately one million dollars (total expenditures in , pg. 22) revenue will need to be generated in order to support additional students. Although there is no set level of support to recommend (support levels are typically based on norms within institutions and norms established within disciplines nationally) it would be suggested that EDCI consider at least matching the highest level of support currently offered for graduate students as a base-line for developing your budget expectations. This would place support in the range of $22, per student (this would be assistantship, scholarship or fellowship level of support). That would mean that funding 60 graduate students would require and investment of 1.3 million dollars. If anticipated growth of funded graduate is at 25% per year you would need to increase your budget by about $300, annually to support the additional graduate students. The question becomes how does one fund these

15 15 additional students. Difficult decisions will need to be made regarding EDCI budget priorities. Depending upon the university and your flexibility in your budget, vacant lines (staff and faculty) maybe used as a temporary fix to fund graduate students. At some institutions, on-line courses generate funds that are directly funneled back to the department. If this is the case, increase the number of offerings on-line may not only assist in growth of graduate student numbers and undergird enrollment concerns in programs, but also generate funds to use to support graduate students. Funds can most certainly be generated to support graduate students through grant activities (e.g., either directly funding students within projects/programs or using IDC returned to department for support). It is clear to us that EDCI and Purdue University is at a turning point. With the high quality faculty and quality programs offered investing in graduate education to enhance EDCI s ability to recruit the best and brightest graduate students to the department should be a high priority for EDCI, the college and the university. Without additional financial support and the graduate student base it is possible that EDCI and Purdue will loose some of the prestige and national reputation that they have earned over the past few decades. This could have a domino effect with high quality faculty leaving for other institutions and departments that are able to more effectively recruit and support graduate students, which are key to the overall health and productivity of any department. Are there effective procedures in place to evaluate effectiveness? There is evidence that the EDCI faculty have utilized and acted upon results and data to determine program effectiveness to impact program improvement. For instance,

16 16 using enrollment data led to the LDT program. The faculty have used data from U.S. News and World Report both from their own reports, as well as other institutions (comparable and aspirational) to aid in their own research productivity. There are other data sources available to faculty to assess effectiveness. For example, the College of Education prepares an Annual Report for Graduate Studies each year and the Survey of Graduate Student Life was administered for the first time in It is unclear how the faculty are utilizing the result for program improvement. We suggest that the EDCI collaborate to review and analyze data to assess the department s impact, particularly in teaching and engagement. What are the 1-2 areas of low-hanging fruit that can have discernible impact on EDCI graduate programs? There are several areas that we would suggest that EDCI consider as potential low-hanging fruit that will have a direct impact on graduate programs and graduate students. A. Critically examine the number of programs within the department and tear down the silos that have been created over a number of years within EDCI. You may want to consider in this process the following: a. Inventory all graduate courses offered both in EDCI and EDS. Where is there duplication? Where is there redundancy? How can we reduce the number of courses offered and maintain high quality curriculum? The sheer number of courses (and courses that we see

17 17 being developed) can be overwhelming not only to prospective students but frustrating as students try to find regular offerings. As well, with limited resources (both financial and human capital) reducing the number of courses offered can free up faculty to address the needs of the department and its students. b. Consider developing a structure of themes under which programs can find themselves and work for interdisciplinary collaboration on course offerings. This will assist in bringing down the silos yet allowing individuals to keep a focus (e.g., science, mathematics, social studies, etc.). c. Critically examine the role of adjunct and courtesy appointment faculty within the department. Having these individuals work with EDCI and the students could be extremely beneficial for crossing discipline boundaries. However, if individuals do not contribute to EDCI except for teaching a class they become little more than itinerate lecturers. B. Build support for graduate students including but not limited to: a. Continued support for assistantships, fellowships and scholarships. b. Building beyond the two current courses that bring the students together and consider cohorts (as voiced by students) as a mechanism to build community.

18 18 c. Work to ensure that faculty are available and knowledgeable about programs and offer sound and timely advice for graduate students. d. Build in opportunities for all graduate students (doctoral and masters level) for practical experiences in research. C. Inventory all programs within EDCI and specifically address low enrollment programs. a. How will you consolidate or address the financial and workload drain of low enrollment programs? b. Use existing models within EDCI as potential ways of building a student base for some programs (e.g., on-line offerings and on-line programs).