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.

1.1. Perceived demand for an online or hybrid Perceived demand for an online or hybrid doctoral program from a survey of doctoral program from a survey of prospective studentsprospective students

2.2. Hiring attitudes towards those with a Hiring attitudes towards those with a doctoral degree earned onlinedoctoral degree earned online

3.3. Status of current doctoral programsStatus of current doctoral programs

3 – Phase Study

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.

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

Disturbing Trends

Doctoral Graduates in IA/TE

83 (Volk)

50 (Volk)

19 (Rogers)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Doctoral Graduates in IA/TE

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

34%

27%

24%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

1997-1998 1998-1999 2000-2001

Source: Brown, D. (2002). Supply and Demand Analysis of Industrial Teacher Source: Brown, D. (2002). Supply and Demand Analysis of Industrial Teacher Education Faculty. Education Faculty. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 40Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 40(1), 60-73.(1), 60-73.

Difficulties in Hiring TE FacultyTE Search Failure Rates

Difficulties in Hiring TE FacultyApplicants per Position

8.59.6

17.3

5

10

15

20

1987

2000

2002

Source: Brown, D. (2002). Supply and Demand Analysis of Industrial Teacher Source: Brown, D. (2002). Supply and Demand Analysis of Industrial Teacher Education Faculty. Education Faculty. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 40Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 40(1), 60-73.(1), 60-73.

75% of Brown’s (2002) respondents found the applicant pool “inadequate.”

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)

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

2005 Program Penetration Rates

the “proportion of institutions that offer a the “proportion of institutions that offer a particular type of face-to-face course or program particular type of face-to-face course or program [and] provide the same type of offering online”[and] provide the same type of offering online”(p. 5)(p. 5)

Bachelor’s: 29.9%Bachelor’s: 29.9%

Master’s: 43.6%Master’s: 43.6%

Doctoral: 12.4%Doctoral: 12.4% Source: Allen, I. E., and Seaman, J., (2005). Source: Allen, I. E., and Seaman, J., (2005). Growing by degrees: Online education in the United States, 2005.Growing by degrees: Online education in the United States, 2005. Needham, MA: Sloan-C. Retrieved October 18, 2006 fromNeedham, MA: Sloan-C. Retrieved October 18, 2006 fromhttp://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/growing_by_degrees.pdf

Phase 3 GoalTo 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

Target Audience

Those designing/implementing doctoral programs

Future applicants for faculty positions

Those contemplating doctoral study

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

Sample

List of PhD and EdD programs– Industrial Teacher Education Directory for 2005-2006– www.petersons.com– www.gradschools.com

One chair/coordinator per institution23 verified doctoral programs19 agreed to participate in telephone interviews

Sincere thanks go to the chairs / directors at the following 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

Participating Institutions

Participating InstitutionsPurdue 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

Participating InstitutionsUniversity 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.

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

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

Program Themes

Educational Studies 6

Research 3

STEM Integration 2

Private Sector 2

Technical/Industrial 2

Student-Centered Program 2

Technology and Society 1

What is the primary theme, or what sets apart the respondents doctoral program?” (n=17, multiple responses were possible)

Program EvolutionHow is the respondent’s program evolving or what new directions is the program taking? (n = 17, multiple responses were possible)

STEM 4

Research 4

Introducing online elements 3

Improving quality of teaching and curriculum 3

Attracting international students 3

Changing from an EdD to a PhD 3

Workforce training 2

Leadership 1

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

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.

Hiring CriteriaMain Hiring Criteria for a Tenure Track Position (n = 16, multiple responses were possible)

Research and publications 11

Holds a terminal degree 6

Teaching experience or formal teaching preparation 5

Industry experience 5

Personality and fit 3

Specifically public school teaching experience 3

Service 2

Grants and funding 2

Enthusiasm and dedication 2

Knowledge of distance education technologies 1

Knowledge of state educational law and mandates 1

Good recommendations 1

Teaching Load

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

Courses Programs

1.0 0

1.5 1

2.0 8

2.5 1

3.0 6

3.5 0

4.0 2

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

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

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

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.

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

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 1 to 5 6 to 10 11+

Number of CoursesP

rog

ram

s

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.

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

Mean of 4.2 (n=15) 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

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…”

Program Obstacles(n Historic = 16, n Present = 14, multiple responses were possible)

Historic Present

Too few staff & faculty; too many students 9 8

Lack of administrative support 6 5

Lack of funding for students 2 3

Lack of organization 1 3

University requirements outside department 2

Broaden course offerings 2

Increasing student costs 1

Lack of program philosophy 1

Changing field 2

Attrition 2

Disagreement within faculty 1

Losing organizational history 1

Reported Solutions(n Historic = 9, n Present = 10, multiple responses were possible)

Historic Present

Fundamental change in the program 2 4

More funding 1 4

Increase faculty or limit number of students 4 2

Change in administration 2

Add alternative course delivery 1 1

More funding for students 1

Increase course offerings 1

Ways of better meeting student needs 1

Revise course cancellation requirements 1

More research 1

Program Opportunities

Funding and grants 11

Fundamental change in program itself 4

Partnering with other universities or programs 3

Increase the number of students 3

Ways of better meeting student needs 2

Partnering with state agencies 1

Increase admission selectivity 1

Attract and accommodate international students 1

Funding for distance elements 1

Recommendations for newly forming F2F doctoral TE programs.(n = 15, multiple responses were possible)

A research emphasis 6

Administration support and funding 3

Focus on college faculty preparation 3

Ways of better meeting student needs 2

Increase online elements 2

Better allocation of resources 2

Emphasize leadership 1

Shift to regional institutions 1

Better marketing 1

Increase admission selectivity 1

Attract international students 1

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.”

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.”

Respondents’ recommendations for newly forming online doctoral TE programs.(n = 16, multiple responses were possible)

Consider hybrid, blended or consortiums 6

Bad idea 3

Use various and appropriate instructional technologies 3

Must have quality assurances 3

Provide meaningful interactions 3

Rigorous admissions requirements 2

Be honest about hiring bias 2

Provide many student resources 1

Base degree on research and scholarship 1

Must have program support 1

Student-centered education 1

Must have high quality professors 1

Respondents’ Recommendations

Demand quality– “I don’t like it. Don’t compromise quality.”

Conclusions

Diversity among programs– Size, Theme, Loads, Research Emphasis

Preference for F2F with pockets of acceptance– Quality concerns

Opportunities

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.