Slide 1

THE REST OF US CAN PLAY TOO: FOLLOW-UP TO THE CARNEGIE INITIATIVE ON THE DOCTORATE

Carnegie Program Review

Dr. Rae Nishi, University of Vermont, CNDP; Dr. Michael Schwartz, University of Maryland; Dr. Katherine Himes, University of Minnesota; Dr. Cheryl Sisk, Michigan State University; Dr. Sam Beshers, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

March 26, 2010Society for Neuroscience Committee of Neuroscience Departments & Programs Spring Meeting

WHO ARE WE?


Katherine Himes Assistant to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, University of Minnesota; Student delegate to the CID, U of Minnesota

Michael Schwartz Postdoctoral fellow, University of Maryland School of Medicine; Student delegate to the CID, Michigan State University

Sam Beshers Neuroscience Program Coordinator, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Faculty delegate to the CID

Cheryl Sisk Faculty and Chair, Neuroscience Program, Michigan State University; Faculty delegate to the CID

Rae Nishi Faculty and Chair, Neuroscience Program, University of Vermont; Faculty delegate to the CID

WHY ARE WE HERE?


We propose that the Society for Neuroscience develop and support Carnegie Program Review, a process modeled on the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate (CID):

• Self-evaluation and improvement of neuroscience doctoral programs

• Effort to be led by C-NDP

WHY SHOULD C-NDP BE INTERESTED?


• Neuroscience training & education:• Increase SfN’s involvement in neuroscience training.• Engage training programs and departments directly• Support development of stewards of the discipline

• Professional development:• Facilitate professional development opportunities by member programs• Emphasize trainees’ career goals

•Tracking progress, building solutions:• Identify emerging issues • Foster a culture of iterative planning in member programs• Use convenings as “think-tanks” for neuroscience training

WHAT WAS THE CID?


• Five-year research and action project (2001-2006) examining the process of doctoral education within six disciplines: chemistry, education, English, history, mathematics, and neuroscience.

• CID was led by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

• Inquiry-based process with these core questions:

• How do we train doctoral students?• Is this similar to or different from other degrees (e.g., M.D., Ed.D.)? • Are there themes common to doctoral training in all disciplines?• Is the current training optimal?• How do programs identify and implement needed changes?

CID MECHANISM: WITHIN PROGRAMS


Intra-program work (“local” work):Series of program-wide discussions

• (students, postdocs, staff, faculty) • Identify core training values for the program• Ask how well the curriculum reflects those values• Typical questions: • How is a 1st year student different from a 3rd or 5th year student?• What does it mean to be a steward of the discipline? Of neuroscience? • What is an intellectual community? How do you foster it?

CID MECHANISM : AMONG PROGRAMS


Inter-program work (“group” work):Yearly convenings brought participants together to share their findings

• Student and faculty representatives from each university• Intradisciplinary convenings

• What makes a neuroscientist?• Training issues common/unique to neuroscience programs?

• Solutions? • Crossdisciplinary convenings

• Mentorship• Breadth vs. depth of training• Developing effective teachers, developing researchers and scholars, supporting intellectual community

CID MECHANISM: AMONG PROGRAMS


Convenings and socials

MEASURING SUCCESS OF PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS (results of the experiment and inquiry)


Demographic/Assessment Measures:Boston UniversityOhio State UniversityMichigan State University

Training Elements:Georgetown UniversityUniversity of Illinois Urbana ChampaignUniversity of WisconsinUniversity of Minnesota

Program Revisions:University of Vermont

There are adequate resources in the Department in case of perceived abuse or misconduct towards graduate students.

Students in the department are treated with respect.

I feel my voice is heard when I have concerns or issues within the department.

Students in the department receive training in professional ethics via coursework or seminars.

Students in the department receive trainingin professional skills such as public speaking, grantwriting, and publications.

DEMOGRAPHICS/ASSESSSMENT: BOSTON UNIVERSITY


Agree Disagree

2004 41% 26%

2008 82% 18%

Agree Disagree

2004 69% 23%

2008 91% 9%

Agree Disagree

2004 37% 56%

2008 64% 27%

Agree Disagree

2004 31% 62%

2008 64% 27%

Agree Disagree

2004 65% 23%

2008 82% 9%

DEMOGRAPHICS/ASSESSMENT: OHIO STATE


2004

Students

2008

Faculty

Publications

DEMOGRAPHICS/ASSESSMENT: MICHIGAN STATE


Neuroscience fundamentals• Specific knowledge in the discipline• Broad-based knowledge, including integration across levels of analysis

Research expertise• Bench skills• Critical thinking and hypothesis testing• Research ethics

Professional skills• Communication• Socialization (citizenship and “the ropes”)

DEMOGRAPHICS/ASSESSMENT: MICHIGAN STATE


Specific Knowledge

Broad-based Knowledge

Research Expertise

Professional Skills

core/elective courses

core/elective courses core/elective courses

core/elective courses

lab course lab course lab course lab course

comps comps comps comps

rotations, dissertation

rotations, dissertation rotations, dissertation

rotations, dissertation

teaching experience teaching experience teaching experience teaching experience

Seminar Series Seminar Series Seminar Series Seminar Series

Research Forum Research Forum Research Forum Research Forum

Responsible Conduct Series




professional meetings




Student Council Student Council Student Council Student Council

TRAINING ELEMENTS: GEORGETOWN


Experiential Learning:

1. Survival Skills and Ethics for Emerging Scientists courses2. Mock grant review sessions3. Grant writing instruction with mini-grants, review, mock study sections, scoring and feedback4. Grant review training

Ethics Training:

1. Assignment of authorship2. Shared responsibility and understanding between mentors and trainees

TRAINING ELEMENTS: UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS


Three areas of focus emerged: Program coherence Professional identity Intellectual community

Examples: • Professional development program• SfN night• Revisions to program guidelines – timing of milestones• Annual report

TRAINING ELEMENTS: UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS


Results:

Time to degree (avg): from >8 to <6 years

(1995-2004 vs 2005-2010)

Number of students with significant concerns during annual review: no significant change (15-20%)

TRAINING ELEMENTS: UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN


1. Evaluated NTP to identify areas where student and faculty conflicts exist

2. Evaluated advisor/student relationships

3. Developed non-traditional career paths to reflect shift in demand in neurosciences

a. Neuroscience and Public Policy Dual Degree Program

b. Teaching opportunities, including teaching certificate, PEOPLE program, and outreach programs

TRAINING ELEMENTS: UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA


1. Revised oral prelim

2. Improved policies for faculty membership in the program 3. Formed a student board

4. Improved the written prelim

PROGRAM REVISIONS: VERMONT


program launched

LONG-TERM IMPACT OF THE CID


1. Increased satisfaction with training program (students/faculty)• Training curricula• Student and faculty participation

2. Improved intellectual community

3. Shift in training students (to be better stewards of the discipline)• Ethics, management, practical skills, mentoring, “other stuff”, neuroscience in society

4. Integrate CID framework and concepts into program operation• Data collection to assess innovations• Student input in training elements• Career development programs• Internal and external program review

WHAT ARE WE PROPOSING?


Carnegie Program Review (CPR)

Customizable framework/mode of inquiry:

• Process of reflection, inquiry, innovation, experimentation, evaluation, repeat (within programs and with additional cohorts)

• Legitimate process with endorsement from SfN and C-NDP

• Culture around this mode of inquiry that is pervasive in neuroscience

• Support (dollars, staff, additional resources) from SfN and C-NDP

• Intellectual community within neuroscience1.Convenings to share ideas and progress

around this mode of inquiry

ROLES AND EXPECTATIONS


Programs

1.Within programs (“local” work): • Working on improvement through understanding core values

2.Among programs (“group” work): • participating in convenings, working at their home institutions on improvement,

• reporting back at convenings/interacting with other programs during the process (present mini, formal reports)

*What about the role of the “wave 1” programs?

ROLES AND EXPECTATIONS


SfN

1.Endorsement/accreditation: your neuroscience program is CPR certified

2.Funding3.Some staff resources (convening logistics)

4.Central repository of information (scholar-informatics)

5.Intellectual community around doctoral education

CPR TIMELINE


LONG-TERM OBJECTIVES


1. Facilitate an open, deliberative process with participating programs to identify graduate program training goals and improve elements of graduate education within those goals.

2. Develop and refine the innovative process used in the CID so it is easily implemented by programs, with a high degree of autonomy.

3. Assess efficacy: surveys of student/faculty, completion, publications, professional placement after PhD.

4. Establish a network for data sharing and cross-program discussion that can be freely accessed by past/present/future participants.

5. Use this infrastructure to encourage innovation in neuroscience training and professional development within and between institutional members.

ENDORSEMENT OF CNDP


Date post:	29-Oct-2014
Category:	Education
Upload:	marina761
View:	247 times
Download:	0 times

Slide 1

Education