Variety Among Technical Technology Education Doctoral Programs

1
Variety Among Technical / Technology Education
Doctoral Programs

• Jim Flowers Edward Lazaros (Holly
  Baltzer)
• Ball State University
• Presented through the Council on Technology
  Teacher Education at the International Technology
  Education Association Conference in Salt Lake
  City, UT, February 21, 2008
• http//jcflowers1.iweb.bsu.edu/pres/2008ITEA.ppt
• This study was funded in part through a CTTE
  research incentive grant.

2
3 Phase Study

• Perceived demand for an online or hybrid doctoral
  program from a survey of prospective students
• Hiring attitudes towards those with a doctoral
  degree earned online
• Status of current doctoral programs

3
Phase 3 Results of telephone interviews with 19
program directors / chairs in 2006/2007
Baltzer, H., Lazaros, E., Flowers, J., (2007).
Review of doctoral programs in technical
education. J. of Industrial Teacher Education,
44(2), 37-59.
4
Earlier Phases

• Flowers, J., Baltzer, H. (2006). Perceived
  demand for online and hybrid doctoral programs in
  technical education. J. of Industrial Teacher
  Education, 43(4), 39-56. Retrieved from
  http//scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v43n4/pdf
  /flowers.pdf
• Flowers, J., Baltzer, H. (2006). Hiring
  technical education faculty Vacancies, criteria,
  and attitudes toward online doctoral degrees. J.
  of Industrial Teacher Education, 43(3), 29-44.
  Retrieved from http//scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals
  /JITE/v43n3/pdf/flowers.pdf

5
Disturbing Trends
6
Doctoral Graduates in IA/TE
7
Doctoral Graduates in IA/TE
8
Difficulties in Hiring TE FacultyTE Search
Failure Rates
Source Brown, D. (2002). Supply and Demand
Analysis of Industrial Teacher Education Faculty.
Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 40(1),
60-73.
9
Difficulties in Hiring TE FacultyApplicants per
Position
75 of Browns (2002) respondents found the
applicant pool inadequate.
Source Brown, D. (2002). Supply and Demand
Analysis of Industrial Teacher Education Faculty.
Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 40(1),
60-73.
10
Possible Implications

• Not enough quality applicants for higher
  education positions
• Failed searches?
• Lowering expectations?
• Possible program closures?
• Less research in the field of technology
  education
• Reed (2002) noted there was a steady decline in
  graduate research (p. 68)

11
Online Education

• Online Education in the US is growing
• Enrollments are increasing.
• Becoming a part of many institutions long-term
  strategies
• However, it is not growing uniformly
• Doctoral programs have the least program
  penetration (institutions offering the same
  program face-to-face and online.)
• Technical education fits this trend

12
2005 Program Penetration Rates

• the proportion of institutions that offer a
  particular type of face-to-face course or program
  and provide the same type of offering
  online(p. 5)
• Bachelors 29.9
• Masters 43.6
• Doctoral 12.4
• Source Allen, I. E., and Seaman, J., (2005).
  Growing by degrees Online education in the
  United States, 2005. Needham, MA Sloan-C.
  Retrieved October 18, 2006 fromhttp//www.sloan-c
  .org/publications/survey/pdf/growing_by_degrees.pd
  f

13
Phase 3 Goal

• To record a snapshot of existing programs and
  assess the readiness of the field for distance
  doctoral programs according to TE doctoral
  program directors / chairs.
• Program Characteristics
• Themes and Directions
• Faculty Vacancies Hiring Criteria
• Online Elements
• Obstacles, Solutions, Opportunities
• Recommendations from Chairs/Program Directors

14
Target Audience

• Those designing/implementing doctoral programs
• Future applicants for faculty positions
• Those contemplating doctoral study

15
Methodology

• Investigation of Online Materials
• Telephone Interviews of Chairs or Doctoral
  Program Directors in 2006 / 2007
• One of two interviewers
• Discussion among three researchers, including
  identification of themes and classification of
  data, until consensus

16
Sample

• List of PhD and EdD programs
• Industrial Teacher Education Directory for
  2005-2006
• www.petersons.com
• www.gradschools.com
• One chair/coordinator per institution
• 23 verified doctoral programs
• 19 agreed to participate in telephone interviews

17
Sincere thanks go to the chairs / directors at
the following institutions.
18
Participating Institutions

• Clemson University
•  PhD and EdD in Workforce Education and
  Development
• Indiana State University
• PhD in Technology Management (Consortium) 
• North Carolina State University
• EdD in Technology Education
• Oklahoma State University
• PhD in Education, option in Occupational
  Education
• Old Dominion University
• PhD in Education, concentration in Occupational
  Technical Studies

19
Participating Institutions

• Purdue University
• PhD in Curriculum Instruction, concentration in
  Career Technical Education
• Southern Illinois University Carbondale
• PhD in Education, concentration in Workforce
  Education
• The Ohio State University
• PhD in Integrated Mathematics, Science,
  Technology Education
• University of British Columbia
• PhD and EdD in Curriculum Studies, concentration
  in Technology
• University of Georgia
• PhD and EdD in Workforce Education

20
Participating Institutions

• University of Manitoba
• PhD in Education, area in Technology or
  Technology Education
• University of Minnesota
• PhD and EdD in Work Human Resource Education
• University of Nevada-Las Vegas
• PhD Higher Education, Workforce Education
  Development
• University of North Texas
• PhD and EdD in Applied Technology Performance
  Improvement
• University of South Florida
• PhD in Curriculum Instruction, concentration in
  Career Workforce Ed.

21
Participating Institutions

• Utah State University
• PhD and EdD in Education (Curriculum
  Instruction), emphasis in Engineering
  Technology Ed.
• Valdosta State University
• EdD in Adult Career Education
• Virginia Polytechnic Institute State University
• PhD and EdD in Curriculum Instruction,
  concentration in Technology Education
• Western Michigan University
• PhD in Educational Leadership, Concentration in
  Career Technical Education

22
Degree Type (N 19)

• Degree Type
• 10 PhD only
• 2 EdD only
• 7 EdD and PhD
• Some noted the phasing out of EdD
• Consortium Program

23
Program Themes
What is the primary theme, or what sets apart the
respondents doctoral program? (n17, multiple
responses were possible)
24
Program Evolution
How is the respondents program evolving or what
new directions is the program taking? (n 17,
multiple responses were possible)
25
Students Faculty

• Full time doctoral students
• Mean 45.1, SD 41.2, n 15
• without consortium, mean 37.4, SD 27.4, range
  5 to 82
• Doctoral enrollment is reported as
• Growing 7
• Stable 8
• Shrinking 3
• Number of doctoral faculty
• Mean 10.9, SD 11.1, n 15, range 1 to 40
• Ratio of 3.4 students per faculty
• this overlooks other faculty assignments

26
Faculty Vacancies

• The average number of current tenure track
  faculty vacancies per department was 1.2 (SD
  1.3, n 15). The average for contract faculty
  was 0.5 (SD 1.2, n 12).
• The predicted number of vacancies for tenure
  track faculty over the next 5 years ranged from 0
  to 30, with an average of 5.0 (SD 7.2, n 15),
  or 1.0 per year. For contract faculty over the
  next five years the average was 3.3 (SD 3.6, n
  9), or .72 per year.

27
Hiring Criteria
Main Hiring Criteria for a Tenure Track Position
(n 16, multiple responses were possible)
28
Teaching Load

• The teaching load varied from 1.5 to 4
  three-credit courses per semester with a mean of
  2.56.

• Faculty Load Reported as Number of Three Credit
  Hour Courses Per Semester (n 18, Mean 2.56).

29
Emphasis placed on research, teaching, and
service for a new faculty member

• Mean Research / Teaching / Service emphases were
  46 / 36 / 18but research
  ranged from 25 to 80.
• (25 / 54 / 21 at Bach Masters institutions)

30
Hiring Preferences

• 11 of 15 reportedly preferred a candidate with a
  face-to-face degree.
• F2F over hybrid hybrid over online
• Quality of program/institution was mentioned by
  some over delivery method.

31
Online Elements

• 11/17 use faculty-at-a-distance
• 11/18 offer at least one grad class by DE
• 7/16 plan to offer more online grad classes

32
Transitioning to an Online Program

• 7/16 suggested their program could be
  transitioned to an online or nearly online model.
• Old Dominion has transitioned to DE.

33
How much is an online doctorate program needed by
the field?

• Mean of 4.2 (n15) on a scale of 1 (not at all)
  to 10 (extremely)
• Reasons
• Perceived weakness
• Inability of DE to provide rich experience
• Would not be received as well during hiring

34
Comments

• Don't. Try to figure out a hybrid design. You've
  got to get people on campus. Even the informal
  things that happen are priceless, discussions
  over coffee, for example...
• Don't promise more than what you can deliver. Be
  honest about what an online degree will actually
  do for them. If a person wants a doctorate degree
  to get a pay raise at the secondary level, an
  online degree is good. If they want to get a
  doctorate degree to go to the next level in their
  career an online degree will not get that for
  them

35
Program Obstacles(n Historic 16, n Present
14, multiple responses were possible)
36
Reported Solutions(n Historic 9, n Present
10, multiple responses were possible)
37
Program Opportunities
38
Recommendations for newly forming F2F doctoral TE
programs.(n 15, multiple responses were
possible)
39
Respondents Recommendations

• A Research Emphasis
• We have to prepare doctoral students to be
  future researchers. We have a pitiful research
  database. They have to be articulate, they have
  to communicate well, and their research has to be
  respected. Otherwise we are dead, and should be.

40
Respondents Recommendations

• More support, promotion, etc.
• You have to have a commitment from the
  administration for financial support. We have
  more programs than we know what to do with and no
  infrastructure has changed. You need support
  staff, travel funds, graduate assistants. Just
  more faculty doesn't help. Promotion of the
  program is important and funds need to be
  allocated for it.

41
Respondents recommendations for newly forming
online doctoral TE programs.(n 16, multiple
responses were possible)
42
Respondents Recommendations

• Demand quality
• I dont like it. Dont compromise quality.

43
Conclusions

• Diversity among programs
• Size, Theme, Loads, Research Emphasis
• Preference for F2F with pockets of acceptance
• Quality concerns
• Opportunities

44
Variety Among Technical / Technology Education
Doctoral Programs

• Jim Flowers Edward Lazaros (Holly
  Baltzer)
• Ball State University
• Presented through the Council on Technology
  Teacher Education at the International Technology
  Education Association Conference in Salt Lake
  City, UT, February 21, 2008
• http//jcflowers1.iweb.bsu.edu/pres/2008ITEA.ppt
• This study was funded in part through a CTTE
  research incentive grant.

45
(No Transcript)