• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content

Loading…

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Like this presentation? Why not share!

Slide 1

on

  • 207 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
207
Views on SlideShare
207
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Intra-program work (“Local” work?) - Series of program-wide discussions: identify core training values for the program, ask how well the curriculum reflects those values typical questions: 1)
  • • revision of the qualifying exam process. • formalization and refinement of the Vesalius Program. • development of a professional skills course for first year graduate students. • development of a student representative organization. • development of an alumni network.
  • New slide: reorganized pub data, allowing comparisons across fac/stu and time. What are the relevant items here? Fac pubs retain wide range of disciplines Student pubs more narrowly focused on what I presume to be core training areas of OSU’s program (neurosci, behavior, pharm, etc)- highlight these on slide as an animation? Student pubs in neurosci double. Suggests thattraining program is working harder to keep student pubs within neurosci bounds, faculty pubs are retaining diversity. Win-win! (this is highly interpretive on my part, and I would be careful about going too far with it wihtout talking more about the data with OSU folks).
  • Use the methodology sub-bullets to highlight particular CID values (stewardship, community, etc)

Slide 1 Slide 1 Presentation Transcript

  • 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, 2010 Society 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 1 st year student different from a 3 rd or 5 th 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 University
        • Ohio State University
        • Michigan State University
        • Training Elements:
        • Georgetown University
        • University of Illinois Urbana Champaign
        • University of Wisconsin
        • University of Minnesota
        • Program Revisions:
        • University of Vermont
  • DEMOGRAPHICS/ASSESSSMENT: BOSTON UNIVERSITY Carnegie Program Review 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 training in professional skills such as public speaking, grant writing, and publications. 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:
    • Survival Skills and Ethics for Emerging Scientists courses
    • Mock grant review sessions
    • Grant writing instruction with mini-grants, review, mock study sections, scoring and feedback
    • Grant review training
    • Ethics Training:
    • Assignment of authorship
    • 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
      • Evaluated NTP to identify areas where student and faculty conflicts exist
      • Evaluated advisor/student relationships
      • Developed non-traditional career paths to reflect shift in demand in neurosciences
          • Neuroscience and Public Policy Dual Degree Program
          • Teaching opportunities, including teaching certificate, PEOPLE program, and outreach programs
  • TRAINING ELEMENTS: UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Carnegie Program Review
      • Revised oral prelim
      • 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 neuroscience
      • Convenings to share ideas and progress around this mode of inquiry
  • ROLES AND EXPECTATIONS Carnegie Program Review
    • Programs
    • Within programs (“local” work):
      • Working on improvement through understanding core values
    • 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
          • Endorsement/accreditation: your neuroscience program is CPR certified
          • Funding
          • Some staff resources (convening logistics)
          • Central repository of information (scholar-informatics)
          • Intellectual community around doctoral education
  • CPR TIMELINE Carnegie Program Review
  • LONG-TERM OBJECTIVES Carnegie Program Review
    • Facilitate an open, deliberative process with participating programs to identify graduate program training goals and improve elements of graduate education within those goals.
    • Develop and refine the innovative process used in the CID so it is easily implemented by programs, with a high degree of autonomy.
    • Assess efficacy: surveys of student/faculty, completion, publications, professional placement after PhD.
    • Establish a network for data sharing and cross-program discussion that can be freely accessed by past/present/future participants.
    • Use this infrastructure to encourage innovation in neuroscience training and professional development within and between institutional members.
  • ENDORSEMENT OF CNDP Carnegie Program Review