Slide 1
description
Transcript of 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?
Carnegie Program Review
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?
Carnegie Program Review
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?
Carnegie Program Review
• 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?
Carnegie Program Review
• 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
Carnegie Program Review
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
Carnegie Program Review
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
Carnegie Program Review
Convenings and socials
MEASURING SUCCESS OF PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS (results of the experiment and inquiry)
Carnegie Program Review
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
Carnegie Program Review
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
Carnegie Program Review
2004
Students
2008
Faculty
Publications
DEMOGRAPHICS/ASSESSMENT: MICHIGAN STATE
Carnegie Program Review
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
Carnegie Program Review
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
Responsible Conduct Series
Responsible Conduct Series
Responsible Conduct Series
professional meetings
professional meetings
professional meetings
professional meetings
Student Council Student Council Student Council Student Council
TRAINING ELEMENTS: GEORGETOWN
Carnegie Program Review
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
Carnegie Program Review
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
Carnegie Program Review
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
Carnegie Program Review
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
Carnegie Program Review
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
Carnegie Program Review
program launched
LONG-TERM IMPACT OF THE CID
Carnegie Program Review
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
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
Carnegie Program Review
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
Carnegie Program Review
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
Carnegie Program Review
LONG-TERM OBJECTIVES
Carnegie Program Review
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
Carnegie Program Review