The Preparing Future Faculty Program (PFF)

A summary of its national evaluation conducted by West Ed,

by Myles Boylan

Outline of Discussion

• What is PFF?• Is it unique? • The case for -- & potential impact of PFF • Its funding history• Its impact - basic data about number of various

participants • Its impact – as measured by survey data from

4 categories of respondents (graduate faculty, graduate students, partner institution faculty, graduate deans)

• Synthesis and final observations

PFF Defined

• Overarching PFF goals are to acculturate doctoral students to a broader range of faculty careers & better prepare them for teaching and service. [largely successful]

• A secondary PFF objective is to capture the interest of more graduate faculty in engaging issues of teaching effectiveness, scholarship, and student learning. [largely unsuccessful]

PFF Defined (2)

• A standard PFF organizational “unit” = 1 doctoral univ. + 2-17 institutional partners more dedicated to undergraduate teaching.

• AAC&U, CGS, and in 11 disciplinary societies coordinate these units.

• A local PFF director and select faculty & administrators provide services to participating graduate students.

• Unit disciplines range from 1 to many.

PFF Defined – Activities:

• Seminars on faculty careers effective teaching

• Mentoring graduate students for teaching & service

• Visits/ internships at “partner” institutions• Career guidance & job search assistance-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Student participation - selective in some units• - typically voluntary (rarely widespread)• Certificates are awarded by some units

PFF intersects other activities and initiatives

• PFF inspired by efforts to improve TAs • Many PFF units located in T&L Centers• But PFF is more than TA training; It seeks to

acculturate students to a broader view. - It also covers advising, mentoring, & service• PFF is served by Re-envisioning the Ph.D.

and overlaps with– The Responsive Ph.D. – The Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate(ASU, Howard, Duke, IU, & CO are in all 3)

The Case for Broadening Grad Ed (PFF)

• NAGPS survey (32K responses) found students want broad curricula for more career choice & good information about careers.

• Many in graduate faculty unfamiliar with faculty life in other types of institutions.

• “Culture” dominated by research focus

• Excess inventory of research postdocs with few & fading teaching and service skills

PFF Funding History

• Began in 1994 with a Pew grant tto AAC&U & CGS (about 50% given to 17 universities)

• Pew provided Phase 2 funds in 1996 to 15 universities (10 also supported in Phase 1)

• NSF grant in 1999 thru AAC&U & CGS to 5 disciplinary associations to 19 departments

• APS grant in 2000 through 6 new disciplinary associations to 25 departments

• Total of $7.8 million awarded; $2.8m to depts.

PFF Impact – Numbers Supported

• 44 unique doctoral universities (28% of recent Ph.D.s, but many fields are not in PFF)

• Other PFF institutions have started w/o external funding

• 339 unique cluster institutions

• 11 disciplinary societies in Phases 3 & 4

• ~ 4,000 students have participated fully

• Only a fraction of eligible students have chosen to be in PFF

Skill:

Level

Research Teaching Service

5, 4 83% vs. 73% 95% vs. 44% 70% vs. 26%

3 15% vs. 26% 5% vs. 26% 26% vs. 48%

2, 1 2% vs. 1% 0% vs. 10% 4% vs. 27%

According to 175 Grad Faculty Respondents, PFF developed better skills: % of PFF Participants (vs. Non-PFF Peers) Once New Faculty

Five Point Scale (5 = High, 3 = Moderate, 1 = Low)

• 88% of Graduate faculty say PFF has improved quality.• 67% believe it has improved faculty mentoring.• 63% believe it has changed the culture in their dept.• 48% believe it has changed the culture in their institution.- (no difference: single discipline vs. hybrid PFF units)

Incentives for graduate faculty participation

• PFF grants disallowed direct salary support, but– 73% of the faculty indicated that their efforts

on behalf of PFF are “valued and rewarded.” – More detailed evidence from discussions and

case studies indicate that faculty were not financially rewarded.

– Further, PFF work typically counts as service, not scholarship.

• PFF graduate faculty relatively scarce in most units (e.g. 4 respondents per unit)

Activity purpose (# items) Very Somewhat Unimportant

Better information (4)* 60% 33% 7%

Improved skills (2)** 56% 33% 11%

Improve undergraduate education 46% 39% 16%

How important were PFF activities to 963 responding PFF graduate students?

* On career options, faculty roles, differences in institution types, and job search. ** Through teaching experience & guidance, and by developing broader credentials.

Opinions of PFF graduate students

• Most Valued Specific Activities – experienced gained teaching courses (80%+)– teaching mentoring (67%)– projects at partner instns // courses & seminars

• 71% // 67% of current PFF grad students• 67% // 61% of those now in faculty jobs• 60% // 61% of others now employed

• Least Valued Activities– informal meetings [50% of academics; 40% if out]

– Interactions with graduate students from other departments [48% of students, 41% of employed]

Perspectives of PFF graduate students

• Did PFF help get your post-PhD. Job?– Yes = 63% of new ten-track faculty (N = 195)– Yes = 42% of new non-TT faculty (N = 113)– Yes = 21% of those in non-faculty jobs (N = 140)

• Recommend to peers? – 73% said “yes” unconditionally– 25% said “yes” only for students planning

academic careers

• PFF had larger effect on completion (12%) than on increasing time-to-degree (only 9%)

31 responding grad deans on PFF Impact

• 75% thought Phases 1 and 2 had changed graduate education - mostly “moderately.”

• 50% thought Phases 3 and 4 had changed graduate education.

-- 30% thought Phase 4 had a dramatic impact.

• They think that their graduate faculty are:– “very interested” in changing grad ed (only 9%) – only “somewhat interested” in changing (69%)– “not interested” in changing (16%)

Synthesis and Conclusions

• PFF has been surprisingly successful (given funding) for graduate students on faculty career paths [students, faculty, and deans].

• It has been moderately successful in changing culture of graduate education in participating departments and universities [faculty & deans].

• It has not been able to achieve participation by a critical mass of faculty [deans, data], even though initial resistance to it has faded.

• It has been partly institutionalized in many of the 44 universities and completely so in a few [case studies, survey responses].

Synthesis and Conclusions (2)

• Inter-departmental PFF activities tend to be less valued by students than those focused in their discipline.

• Inter-institutional activities are very useful.

• Seminars and courses are very useful.

• Specific teaching focus is prized by most.

• Hybrid PFF model embracing depts. & the graduate dean is most effective & most likely to become institutionalized.