THE REST O F US CANPLAY
TO O : FO LLO W-UP TO THE
CARNEGIE INITIATIVE O NTHE
DO CTO RATE
Carnegie Program Review
Dr. Rae N...
WHO ARE WE?
Carnegie Program Review
Katherine Himes Assistant to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs
and Provos...
WHY ARE WE HERE?
Carnegie Program Review
We propose that the Society for
Neuroscience develop and support
Carne g ie Pro g...
WHY SHOULD C-NDP BE
INTERESTED?
Carnegie Program Review
• Neuroscience training & education:
• Increase SfN’s involvement ...
WHAT WAS THE CID?
Carnegie Program Review
• Five-year research and action project (2001-2006)
examining the process of doc...
CID MECHANISM: WITHIN
PROGRAMS
Carnegie Program Review
Intra-program work (“local” work):
Series of program-wide discussio...
CID MECHANISM : AMONG
PROGRAMS
Carnegie Program Review
Inter-program work (“group” work):
Yearly convenings brought partic...
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/Asse...
There are adequate resources in the Department in
case of perceived abuse or misconduct towards
graduate students.
Student...
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 disc...
DEMOGRAPHICS/ASSESSMENT:
MICHIGAN STATE
Carnegie Program Review
Specific
Knowledge
Broad-based
Knowledge
Research
Expertis...
TRAINING ELEMENTS:
GEORGETOWN
Carnegie Program Review
Experiential Learning:
1 . SurvivalSkills and Ethics fo r Em e rg in...
TRAINING ELEMENTS:
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
Carnegie Program Review
Three areas of focus emerged:
Program coherence
Professi...
TRAINING ELEMENTS:
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
Carnegie Program Review
Results:
Time to degree (avg): from >8 to <6 years
(1995...
TRAINING ELEMENTS:
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
Carnegie Program Review
1. Evaluated NTP to identify areas where student and
fa...
TRAINING ELEMENTS:
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
Carnegie Program Review
1. Revised oral prelim
2. Improved policies for faculty...
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)
• T...
WHAT ARE WE PROPOSING?
Carnegie Program Review
Carnegie Program Review (CPR)
Customizable framework/mode of inquiry:
• Pro...
ROLES AND EXPECTATIONS
Carnegie Program Review
Programs
1.Within programs (“local” work):
• Working on improvement through...
ROLES AND EXPECTATIONS
Carnegie Program Review
SfN
1. Endorsement/accreditation: your neuroscience
program is CPR certifie...
CPR TIMELINE
Carnegie Program Review
LONG-TERM OBJECTIVES
Carnegie Program Review
1. Facilitate an open, deliberative process with participating programs to
id...
ENDORSEMENT OF CNDP
Carnegie Program Review
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Slide 1

208 views
148 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
208
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 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

    1. 1. THE REST O F US CANPLAY TO O : FO LLO W-UP TO THE CARNEGIE INITIATIVE O NTHE DO CTO RATE 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
    2. 2. 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
    3. 3. WHY ARE WE HERE? Carnegie Program Review We propose that the Society for Neuroscience develop and support Carne g ie Pro g ram Re vie w, a process modeled on the Carne g ie Initiative o n the Do cto rate (CID): • Self-evaluation and improvement of neuroscience doctoral programs • Effort to be led by C-NDP
    4. 4. 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
    5. 5. 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?
    6. 6. 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?
    7. 7. 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
    8. 8. CID MECHANISM: AMONG PROGRAMS Carnegie Program Review Convenings and socials
    9. 9. 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
    10. 10. 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. 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%
    11. 11. DEMOGRAPHICS/ASSESSMENT: OHIO STATE Carnegie Program Review 2004 Students 2008 Faculty Publications
    12. 12. 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”)
    13. 13. 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
    14. 14. TRAINING ELEMENTS: GEORGETOWN Carnegie Program Review Experiential Learning: 1 . SurvivalSkills and Ethics fo r Em e rg ing Scie ntists courses 2. Mock grant review sessions 3. Grant writing instruction with mini-grants, review, mock study sections, scoring and feedback 4. Grant review training Ethics Training: 1. Assignment of authorship 2. Shared responsibility and understanding between mentors and trainees
    15. 15. 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
    16. 16. 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%)
    17. 17. 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
    18. 18. 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
    19. 19. PROGRAM REVISIONS: VERMONT Carnegie Program Review program launched
    20. 20. 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
    21. 21. 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 1. Convenings to share ideas and progress around this mode of inquiry
    22. 22. 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?
    23. 23. ROLES AND EXPECTATIONS Carnegie Program Review SfN 1. Endorsement/accreditation: your neuroscience program is CPR certified 2. Funding 3. Some staff resources (convening logistics) 4. Central repository of information (scholar- informatics) 5. Intellectual community around doctoral education
    24. 24. CPR TIMELINE Carnegie Program Review
    25. 25. 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.
    26. 26. ENDORSEMENT OF CNDP Carnegie Program Review

    ×