1. Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) Daniel Denecke Director, Best Practices Council of Graduate Schools (US) www.cgsnet.org www.preparing-faculty.net

2. What was wrong with doctoral education? Inadequate supply to meet future demand Quality of undergraduate education compromised by:  Prestige system that rewards research, not teaching  Increasing burden on graduate TA’s to cover undergraduate courses Mismatch between graduate degree experience and career opportunities

3. Responding to the Call: Graduate Reform Initiatives Re-envisioning the Ph.D. (Univ. of Washington) Responsive Ph.D. (Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation) Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate Preparing Future Faculty (CGS and AAC&U) Ph.D. Completion Project (CGS)

4. Preparing Future Faculty (PFF): Assumptions Faculty roles and responsibilities are various and demanding in any context Ph.D.s pursue academic careers at a variety of types of institutions Different types of institutions define “academic practice” differently, and thus require different competencies, skills, and sensitivities Collaboration and Partnership are key to future faculty development

5. Cluster Model and Institutional Priorities Research Service Research TeachingService Teaching Service Anchor (Doctoral) Universities Community Colleges Liberal Arts Colleges Master’s Focused Universities Research Teaching Service

6. “Academic Practice”: How it is Developed through PFF In the Absence of Programs: Sporadically Dyadically By Imitation Unevenly As a Result of Programs: Structured Experience Collectively Through Reflection and Deliberation Evenly – accessible to all

7. Enhancing Academic Practice Research  Grant writing and grants management  Lab management  Research ethics/responsible conduct of research  Institutional Review Boards Teaching  Pedagogy in the discipline  Pedagogy for different populations  Syllabus and curriculum development  Scholarship of teaching and learning; assessment Service  Civic duties of a “public intellectual”  Communicating one’s research beyond one’s discipline  Academic leadership and administration

8. Demystifying Academic Practice Publications and Conferences Job Interviews and Job Talks Department Politics How a University Works Navigating the Road to Tenure

9. PFF Program Structure: (e.g. Duke - Biology) A Certificate Program (44% overall) Workshops and Seminars Guest Lecture Series Credit Courses Supervised Internship (multiple mentors) Institutional and Departmentally-supported informal networking opportunities (alumni, guest lectures, faculty, peer mentors, etc.) Incentives for Partner Faculty Graduate students involved in project support New Faculty Line (“Professor of the Practice”)

10. Other Typical PFF Curricular Elements PFF Orientation Classroom Management Curricular Design Pedagogy in the Discipline Learning Outcome Assessment/STL (e.g. University of Michigan chemistry w/ School of Education) Technology in the Classroom Teaching in a Diverse Environment

11. Most Common Challenges and Effective Solutions Challenges: Faculty buy-In Time-to-degree/“distraction” concerns Sustainability Solutions:  More research emphasis and activities  A researcher-champion  Flexible and/or developmental scheduling  PFF woven into the fabric of program (e.g. through certificate or credit courses)

12. Lessons Learned from PFF ( external evaluators’ conclusions ) Things to Avoid Setting up faculty for “burnout” or endangering “at risk” faculty Being labeled as a teaching-Only program Taking advantage of partner institutions and faculty Insufficient and insecure funding

13. Student Perceptions of PFF Teaching Courses (81%), PFF Courses (61%) Mentoring for Teaching (67%), Service (44%), Research (44%), Job Search (62%) Project at Partner Institution (65%) Guest Lecturing Opportunities (58%) Informal Instruction (48%) Provided opportunities to interact with faculty and students from diverse disciplines (58%) and backgrounds (57%) Received enhanced faculty mentoring (39%) “Took time away from my research” (17%) “Encouraged my degree completion” (12%) “Lengthened my time to degree” (10%) Haviland, Goldsmith, and Daily, Socializing Tomorrow’s Professors: The Value-Added of PFF Programs

14. National Scope of PFF 41 of 44 grantee universities are “research intensive” - (They represent 27% of all such universities in the US, including 9 of the top 20 Ph.D. producers in U.S.; they awarded 28% of research doctorates in 2001) Nearly 340 partner institutions participated Many private “elites” did not participate (exceptions: e.g. Duke, Cornell). Why not?  Inadequate articulation of value of PFF for preparation of graduate research faculty