Purdue University College of Education Department of Curriculum and Instruction External Review Site Visit, December 2-4, 2007 Recommendations Reviewers: Karen Symms Gallagher, Dean, University of Southern California; Mary Kalantzis, Dean, University of Illinois; Deborah Dillon, Professor, University of Minnesota The review team visited the Purdue campus to conduct a five-year external review of the graduate programs in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction (EDCI). The reviewers were asked to examine a self-study document, created by the C&I Department; to meet with various faculty members in the department and at the college-level; and then to develop a written report of findings and recommendations. Key questions guiding the review included the following: 1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the EDCI graduate programs? 2. How does the EDCI graduate education contribute to the mission and goals of the department and college? 3. How might the department leverage its strengths and the strengths of Purdue and national trends to increase its national visibility and reputation? The review team appreciated the opportunity to learn about the mission and goals of the department and the self-study reports of the seven program areas wherein separate goals, missions, and strategic plans are outlined. Course enrollment data and highlighted program contributions were described. During the site visit, we examined some data provided about faculty numbers, salaries, and space issues. The department report noted the emphasis placed on teacher education and undergraduate program reform in C&I and highlighted the extensive efforts of multiple faculty members in the area of teaching effectiveness and in local outreach and engagement efforts. Work in the area of reforming doctoral research requirements in C&I also resulted in a thoughtful report outlining recommendations that have been put forth to the College for consideration. We will address a recommendation regarding this report later in our review document. The faculty members that met with us indicated a desire to be part of quality graduate programs. These faculty members appear to be aware of the elements necessary for strong PhD programs and graduate student preparation: Excellent programs require faculty members who are actively engaged in research writing grants, conducting research, guiding and mentoring graduate students on projects, and writing up the results of research for publication in peer-reviewed journals. In addition, high quality graduate programs tend to have a unique signature they are focused and require commitments to well-designed coursework that is offered in a consistent, coherent manner. In quality programs students have opportunities to read and critique research, pose questions, engage in inquiry and reflection, and practice research and writing skills. 1
As noted above, high quality graduate programs are comprised of faculty members who are actively engaged in research. This brings us to our first concern: The data in the department report indicate a low level of faculty productivity, particularly in the area of grant funding, and a low number of articles published by faculty in peer-reviewed journals. For example, in 2002 the EDCI faculty published 37 articles in refereed journals, but four years later the total number published was 40. This performance is at odds with the aspirations expressed in the various meetings and the goals of the strategic documents that were provided. It was reported that the department has sought ways to provide support and incentives to address these research and funding areas of concern; we will provide additional recommendations and suggested actions. Our second area of concern involves the low numbers of graduate students in programs the department. The department report presents data that raise concerns about graduate enrollments across program areas with trends indicating that enrollments and degrees awarded are dropping at a rate that requires immediate attention. Below we offer our analyses of the department report, brochures and documents we received from faculty members, and our conversations with groups, center directors and administrators. We then offer recommendations and mechanisms for addressing the suggested actions for consideration by the faculty in C&I. Metrics for determining the success of each recommendation would need to be developed but have not been offered in the table below. Rather than talk about strengths and weaknesses, we will refer to features of the program that arose from the material presented to us. We will then provide suggestions for enabling faculty aspirations and meeting strategic goals. Although we were not asked to address issues related to the Department of Educational Studies or to programs outside either department, we want to point out how important this time is for all programs in the College of Education. With a new president of the university searching for a provost and with the College searching for a new dean, this transitional time should include activities for faculty development: Activities that recognize the work accomplished in the last four years, that celebrate a sense of belonging to the larger mission of Purdue and the College of Education and that provide opportunities to identify common ground among all faculty and staff. With new academic leadership in the College and the University, this transitional point can provide focus and momentum for faculty productivity and program quality to improve. 2
Currently there are (7) program areas in the Dept of C&I, with low and declining numbers of students in most areas (an exception is Curriculum Studies). Faculty are focused on individual research efforts within these areas. Despite a rich history of providing many program areas across a breadth of topics, several program areas are too small in and of themselves to sustain. Purdue University, C&I Department Issues/Analyses Recommendations Mechanisms 1. PhD PROGRAMS A specific, shared, cohesive focus is required to move C&I graduate programs forward. This is critical for an R1 institution. Small programs should be combined in meaningful ways or phased out; faculty members in these programs are talented and can contribute in other ways to the new, broader program configurations. The department should consider redesigning its existing set of programs into one core set of courses with 1-2 specializations that are broad and represent innovative configurations that allow faculty to work on complex educational issues that may leverage future grant funding. These new areas may include (a) science, math, and technology; and (b) Culture and Classroom Practice (including Curriculum Studies, Literacy & Social Studies) Embrace and encourage the use of a range of research methodologies to create strong research initiatives within the department; prepare graduate students to be strong researchers in multiple methodologies. Students need to get RAs rather than TAs so that they Faculty members in C&I need to be provided with multiple opportunities to discuss larger issues of specialization and how to determine that their research expertise contributes to these new department specializations (e.g. Policy retreats, Design forums). PD funds will be needed to support faculty as they redesign programs and coursework. Metrics need to be developed and used to review and phase out programs that are not currently vibrant or viable. The report on proposed doctoral research requirements for C&I (previously submitted to the College for consideration) needs to be taken up again by the dean s office. A college-level task force should be convened (representatives from both departments and led by the Associate Dean for Research). Use the document to influence important conversations about the research skills and 3
2. MASTERS PROGRAMS There are multiple masters degree programs they are also dropping in enrollments and appear to be unnecessary to Indiana teachers who no longer need the degree/coursework for their professional growth gain experience on research projects. Consideration should also be given to introducing a professional doctorate. This would align well with the mission of the College to produce high quality teachers and educational professionals. The department should consider phasing out the current masters degree programs and redesigning a master degree program that is modular and provides creative alternatives including 2-3 course certificates, innovative PD experiences for credits/contract; strategically designed online and hybrid programs, and modules of specialized knowledge/experiences. mentoring all graduate students in the College need. Present ways that C&I can lead and share the research preparation of graduate students from across the College. A college-wide retreat with an external facilitator and discussing a national report like Levine s Educating Researchers is a promising vehicle for creating a shared culture. This activity could be a catalyst for rethinking not only the C& I department s programs but all graduate programs in the College. Use development monies to fund faculty PD sessions to develop and pilot these initiatives; reward faculty for these efforts and ensure that resources are in place to allow quality and sustainability. Involve excellent community colleagues (e.g., K-12 teachers and administrators) in the design and possible delivery of these new masters degree programs. 4
3 RESEARCH CULTURE & INFRASTRUCTURE The expressed desire to be a Research I college does not appear to be matched by an appropriate infrastructure or a robust culture of research and scholarship. There appear to be limited resources available at the college level to support the growth of research activity required to meet the goals of strategic plan Vibrant research agendas and projects are key for attracting grant monies and grant monies are needed for high quality research that will have impact beyond the local level. This is critical for faculty at an AAU research institution like Purdue. Clarification is thus required about faculty commitment to currently professed range of strategic foci. Research must become a priority for all faculty members in the department not just the new, pre-tenured faculty and a few tenured faculty. Research infrastructure needs to be strengthened. Faculty members need college and departmental support to conceptualize research agendas that cut across program areas and individuals and focus on key, shared, cohesive initiatives. C&I faculty need to seek grant partners in Ed Studies and across the Purdue campus. These partners can help is crafting competitive grant proposals and individuals outside of C&I offer multidisciplinary perspectives key to securing monies. Employ a grant writer and a research administration specialist to form college-wide support for initial grant efforts. 5
4. CENTERS The three Centers associated with C&I are focused on interesting outreach efforts and are engaging in some limited research. They appear to be involved in a lot of community activity but are only loosely connected to the Department or the College research aspirations. Centers need to be located at the college level, reporting to the Dean s office, and be expected to contribute to research output. The work of the centers would be strengthened by working on research agendas that cut across the centers and link up center work with new department shared research foci/initiatives. The centers should be places of research innovation in the area of engagement and teacher development across a lifetime. Seed money for faculty members engaged in small innovative projects that can then be leveraged for larger grants could come through the centers. RA appointments could be made through/with center support to help with department research initiatives. These efforts can occur through college or cross college centers such as CRESME. RA positions can be written into these grants, bolstering C&I graduate programs and providing needed support to faculty. Performance expectations of Center directors need to include metrics that demonstrate that the work the centre is involved in allows the center to: a) meet its mission; and b) contribute to enhancing research culture and experiences for grad students, faculty and teachers in local schools, through participation in joint projects. Consideration needs also to be given to the re purposing of development funds attached to centers so that more faculty can be involved in contributing to the designated mission of the funds available. 6
5. FACULTY AND RESEARCH CAPACITY As research faculty write grants and receive funding, several strategically placed clinical faculty members will be needed to provide quality instruction and continuity for the preservice courses (with oversight from faculty members). Faculty in C&I have individual research initiatives but the department needs to be known for several high profile and important areas of research expertise. Joint-appointed faculty need to take the initiative and request to be PIs on large research grants with colleagues in other disciplines (vs. waiting to be asked to serve on a grant). As the college bolsters the support mechanisms faculty need to help with grant writing, proposal submissions, and grant oversight, faculty will not need to submit grants through other colleges who currently have these supports and appear as more attractive outlets for proposals. Clinical faculty typically have teaching loads of 3-4 courses a semester. These are full-time colleagues with renewable contracts. Care must be taken to balance the appointment of these individuals and still leave some teaching appointments for graduate students. C&I needs to identify 2-3 key research areas & initiatives (beyond STEM) that can bring visibility to the department. Faculty then can design rich research initiatives where expertise from many faculty and graduate students can be brought to bear on complex educational issues (e.g., preparing teachers to work with learners from diverse backgrounds; studying the impact of study abroad experiences on teacher development; designing & researching innovative, sustained, professional development across a number of content areas and the impact on student achievement). Work needs to be done on strengthening the department s research identity/brand and culture. The department needs to set goals with specific benchmarks/metrics that are staged and achievable Use current reports to generate discussion and create these larger shared research agendas (e.g., Arthur Levine s report on educating researchers) A differentiated workload proposal has been drafted at the college level. This plan may hold promise if does not provide an out for tenured faculty who do not want to do research at Purdue--a R1 institution. Faculty need to consider how a potential workload change will impact the P&T process (e.g. Could tenured faculty become nonresearchers but still vote on junior faculty research performance and tenure?) 7