Preparing Future Faculty in Psychology

Final Narrative Report

American Psychological Association

Washington, DC

December 2002

This report was prepared by Paul D. Nelson, Deputy Executive Director for Education, American Psychological Association, program coordinator for the national disciplinary

association in psychology. Appreciation is expressed to Joan Freund (Assistant to the Deputy Executive Director) and Kelly Myers (intern) of the Education Directorate, as well as to each of the following PFF psychology team leaders for their assistance in the development of materials

used in preparing this report: Victor Benassi (University of New Hampshire), Irene Blair (University of Colorado), Rosemary Phelps (University of Georgia), and Cecilia Shore (Miami

University of Ohio).

The program described in this report was part of the national initiative on “Preparing

Future Faculty in the Humanities and Social Sciences,” co-sponsored by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) and the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS)

from 2000-02, with grant support from Atlantic Philanthropies. The American Psychological Association expresses its appreciation to these organizations for the

opportunity to participate in this strategic national initiative in addressing future needs of the American professoriate with disciplines in the humanities and social sciences.

Particular appreciation is expressed to Jerry Gaff, Anne Pruitt-Logan, Alma Clayton-Pederson and Les Sims for their respective roles of leadership at various times during this

grant period.

Introduction Psychology in the context of disciplines Psychology as a scientific discipline, having roots in such diverse disciplines as philosophy and physiology, transcends the humanities, social sciences, biological sciences, and mathematics in its methodologies and substantive areas of scholarly inquiry. Its clinical, social and cognitive scientists today can be found collaborating with neurochemists, molecular biologists, physicians and others of the expanding neuroscience field who seek a better understanding of the human brain and its relation to thought, emotion, behavior, and disease. By contrast, other psychologists may be found collaborating with sociologists, economists, political scientists, and scholars of the humanities in seeking a better understanding of the social issues that pose significant and costly challenges to the quality of life and human society locally and globally. This diversity of the discipline has at least two major implications for academic work in psychology. First, as is true for other disciplines as well, with the diverse and expanding bodies of knowledge that are vital to those in the discipline, graduate study at the doctoral level among those preparing for research careers has become increasingly specialized. At the same time, the diversity of academic and non-academic employment roles for psychologists prepared for research careers has increased over the past half century. Over the same period of time another distinctive development has occurred in psychology, typically uncharacteristic of the humanities and other science disciplines. It is that psychology has become a licensed profession, as well as a scientific discipline. Today psychology is a major health profession, along with medicine, dentistry, nursing, and public health, with applications well beyond its historical roots in mental health. The professional practice of psychology also can be found in our nation’s school systems, our corporate organizations, and our communities in general. This development also has increased the diversity of academic and non-academic employment roles for psychologists whose graduate education emphasizes the integration of theory, research and practice in the profession. At mid-century in the 1900s, approximately 70% of the new doctorates in psychology placed in academic positions as their primary employment, with the others taking non-academic positions. Today that statistic is the reverse, namely, approximately 30% of our new doctorates in psychology take academic positions as their primary employment. This statistic must be interpreted, of course, in a supply and demand context. On the supply side, there are many more doctoral degrees granted in psychology today (approximately 4,000/year) than there were in 1950 (approximately 350). Moreover, of the doctoral degrees granted today, approximately 60% are in professional practice areas of psychology. On the demand side, clearly the number of postsecondary academic institutions at which psychologists are needed for faculty positions has increased, as has the number and diversity of academic units of organization (i.e., types of colleges and academic departments) in which they have faculty appointments. Similar increase in demand for psychologists also has occurred outside the academy. Psychology in the context of preparing future faculty Psychology and education have been inextricably related as disciplines for at least the past century. The first teaching clinic in psychology, during the 1890s, included an assessment of and

2

research on reading difficulties of a school youngster. By the early years of the 20th century, John Dewey’s profound influence on the philosophy of American education and schooling already had been initiated, even as he served as the 8th president of the relatively new American Psychological Association (APA) in 1899. The preparation of teachers became a major focus of Dewey’s scholarship and political influence. Human learning, and the motivational, cognitive, and behavioral processes related to it, has always been central to psychological research, as has its assessment through educational test development, aptitude and interest measurement, and in today’s context the multiple forms of human intelligence. Many of the leading scholars contributing to our national initiatives on education reform, through improvement of teaching and learning and their assessment, have disciplinary backgrounds in psychology. Although most of these contributions historically have been applied to the pre-K through secondary education levels, increasingly they are being examined as well in the context of learning at the higher education level. Classic examples of psychologists’ contributions to postsecondary education include Wilbert McKeachie’s guide on teaching tips for college faculty, Alexander Astin’s longitudinal assessment of undergraduate student outcomes, and Robert Boice’s scholarly work on new faculty. It was for good reason in the historical context of psychology’s growth as a discipline that one of the earliest member interest divisions to be formed when the APA was reorganized in the 1940’s were the Division on Teaching of Psychology. Since those years, further institutionalization of commitment to undergraduate teaching in psychology has been evident in the form of periodic national conferences on that theme, emphasizing the role of the discipline in the context of general and liberal education. Indeed, the APA has a policy related to the purpose of the undergraduate major in that context and more recently developed national guidelines for learning objectives of the undergraduate major in psychology. The APA Division on Teaching of Psychology also publishes a scholarly journal and maintains an excellent web site of resources for undergraduate faculty and students. In collaboration with the APA Education Directorate, it also sponsors workshops and recently established a task force to develop initiatives related to the future professoriate in psychology, an effort coordinated directly with the APA Education Directorate’s PFF program. For undergraduate students, among whom Introductory Psychology remains one of the most heavily enrolled courses across all types of colleges and universities, and a major in psychology remains one of the most popular majors, the national honorary society Psi Chi remains active in a variety of activities in collaboration with the APA and regional psychological associations. It is within this context that the national initiative “Preparing Future Faculty” (PFF) finds a particularly natural place in the discipline of psychology. Yet, despite the long and broad history of psychology’s involvement with education, teaching, learning, and assessment of the same, graduate departments of psychology in doctoral degree granting institutions generally have given no more systematic attention than have graduate department in other disciplines at that level of education to the formal preparation of their doctoral students for the professoriate as a scholarly profession. In general, they have prepared their students well in the conduct of research or, for psychology’s applied areas, for professional practice outside the academy. The diversity of career options for psychologists in academic and non-academic positions, or some combination thereof, is a subject with which most graduate students in psychology are not well acquainted, let alone the issue of how best to prepare in graduate school for these alternatives. It is towards a

3

better understanding of these issues by students and faculty that the APA, in collaboration with the Council of Graduate Departments of Psychology, aspires to achieve. The national PFF initiative, therefore, is consonant with this goal. By participating in the PFF initiative, moreover, psychology has developed some different models by which different types of graduate departments might consider implementing and institutionalizing as part of their graduate education mission the preparation of their students, or at least those with interest and potential, for the complex array of roles that characterize the professoriate among the diversity of higher education institutions in our society. This report will highlight the lessons learned from the PFF models in psychology, the developments that are leading to further implementation and institutionalization of the PFF mission in graduate departments of psychology, and other recommendations resulting from our PFF experiences. Preparing Future Faculty in Psychology: Four Developmental Models The request for proposals to participate in the grant for “Preparing Future Faculty in the Humanities and Social Sciences” was promulgated by the APA doctoral degree granting institution graduate departments in psychology in January 2000, guided by provisions set forth for the grant by the AAC&U and CGS. The APA also appointed a national advisory panel of 15 psychologists and 1 graduate student (president, American Psychological Association Graduate Students). The psychologists were diverse in academic institution background, years in the discipline, gender, ethnicity and scholarly areas of interest. Most have been leaders of education in the discipline. One was a postdoctoral resident who had completed a campus-based PFF program at Duke University. The names and institutional affiliations of those appointed are presented as Appendix A to this report. The major task posed of the advisory panel was to evaluate the grant proposals received in the Spring 2000, each panelist being asked to evaluate each proposal on the PFF rating form presented in Appendix B, designed to cover the major objectives of the PFF grant. The plan of the grant being for each disciplinary association to support about 4 university models, under an institutional matching fund provision, the advisory panelists were asked to rank the proposals in addition to rating each proposal on the PFF factors. Following this process, four grant awardees were selected in psychology, these being Miami University of Ohio, the University of Colorado at Boulder, the University of Georgia, and the University of New Hampshire (alphabetically listed). From the perspective of graduate education in psychology, these grantees represent four different university settings and department cultures. Salient characteristics of each are described as follows. Miami University of Ohio (Miami) Although it is a doctoral degree granting institution, Miami as an institution has a history of emphasis on undergraduate education, is known for its “learning community” initiatives, and has regularly hosted a Lily Conference to advance college teaching. Its graduate department of psychology faculty share in undergraduate and graduate education responsibilities and represent the diversity of psychology as a scientific discipline and profession, thus preparing their modest number of doctoral students for a range of career options.

4

Miami’s partner institutions for PFF included: Miami University Branch Campuses at Hamilton and Middletown, Northern Kentucky University, College of Mount Saint Joseph, and Earlham College, public and private institutions at which undergraduate education is the major institutional focus and teaching is the major role of faculty. No other PFF program, campus-wide or discipline-based, existed at Miami when the grant was awarded to psychology. At that time, the PFF cluster team leader for Miami held the rank of Associate Professor of Psychology. The University of Colorado at Boulder (Colorado) As a Research I institution, Colorado enjoys depth and breadth of research faculty in the graduate department of psychology. Its faculty and enrolled graduate students also reflect the diversity of scientific and professional areas of psychology, although major emphasis even in the professional areas of psychology remains on research. While the undergraduate enrollment is substantial, the graduate department faculty emphasis is primarily on research and the preparation of graduate students for research careers. Colorado’s partner institutions for PFF included: Colorado College, Yale University, and Connecticut College. In other words, there were two clusters coordinated through this PFF program, each having a distinguished Research I institution partnered with a geographically proximal selective Liberal Arts college. Each year of the grant, in addition, faculty and graduate student representatives of the two regional clusters met together on PFF issues for a weekend conference. Other discipline-based PFF programs existed or were being initiated at Colorado at the time this grant was awarded to psychology. At that time, the PFF cluster team leader for Colorado was an untenured Assistant Professor of Psychology (as was the cluster leader’s counterpart at Yale University). The University of Georgia (Georgia) Being a Research I institution, Georgia also has depth and breadth of research faculty, distributed across three graduate departments of psychology (one in the College of Arts and Sciences and the other two in the College of Education). An innovative feature of this PFF program is that it was organized to include faculty and students of the three graduate departments of psychology. Another distinguishing characteristic is that, of the four universities having psychology PFF programs, a greater proportion of the Georgia graduate students are in professional practice areas of the discipline. Georgia’s partner institutions for PFF included: North Georgia College and State University, Kennesaw State University, Morehouse College, and Morehouse School of Medicine. The combination of undergraduate, master’s, and professional education missions are illustrated in the Georgia partner institutions.

5

No other PFF program, campus-wide or discipline-based, existed at Georgia when this grant was awarded to psychology. At that time, the PFF cluster team leader for Georgia held the rank of Associate Professor of Psychology. The University of New Hampshire (UNH) As a doctoral degree granting institution, UNH also places significant emphasis on undergraduate education as well as on the research of its graduate faculty. Thus, similar to Miami, its graduate department of psychology faculty share balanced responsibility for undergraduate and graduate students. Differing from the other three graduate departments of psychology offering PFF programs, UNH has no graduate program in professional areas of psychology. Moreover, it is the only graduate department among all graduate departments of psychology nationally for which the primary mission of the department is to prepare graduate students for the professoriate and college teaching. The UNH partner institutions for PFF included: UNH Manchester, Howard University, Dartmouth College, Saint Anselm College, Keene State College, and the New Hampshire Community Technical College System. Having two other doctoral degree granting institutions as well as the others in this cluster constituted the most diverse set of partners among the four PFF model programs in psychology. The UNH was among the first universities to offer a campus-wide PFF program which at the time of the grant award also was supported through academic department involvement, especially the department of psychology from which leadership for the campus-wide program originated. The UNH graduate department of psychology, in fact, had a PFF-like program long before the national initiative on PFF, due to its unique department mission previously noted. Thus, selection of UNH as an awardee of the grant was not for the purpose of starting a PFF program; rather, it was for the purpose of advancing the quality of its existing program and for dissemination of lessons learned from its prior developments. At the time the grant was awarded, the PFF team leader for UNH held the rank of Full Professor of Psychology and was serving also as Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies at UNH. Preparing Future Faculty in Psychology: Achievements and Lessons Learned Final reports of the PFF team clusters The final narrative reports of the four psychology PFF programs responsive to guidance on format from CGS, are presented as Appendix C. The reports speak summarily to program highlights of activities, achievements, and concerns. Each program also replied to an APA final report, the format for which is presented in Appendix D, which is included an with appropriate analysis of PFF program elements experienced in the degree granting and partner institutions. These reports were preceded in turn by an annual progress report submitted by each cluster team to the APA, in which developments were requested in relation to each of the PFF program parameters on which their grant proposals had been evaluated initially. In addition, the APA

6

program coordinator conducted a site visit to meet with participants of each of the four programs and, as available, their department and relevant university administrators. Thus, progress of each program was monitored throughout the grant period. Noteworthy individual recognition of PFF participants While most of this report is focused on program achievements, it seems worthy to mention a few individual achievements as well. During the course of this PFF grant, two of the four psychology PFF team leaders, and one of their deputy team leaders, were promoted in academic rank. Although this achievement cannot be attributed to their PFF leadership roles, it is at least a tribute to these faculty that they were able to advance in academic rank while also devoting significant time to PFF leadership responsibilities. What can be attributed to the PFF faculty of each team cluster, the team leaders, other faculty of the lead university, and faculty of the partner institutions who participated in this PFF program, is the success of leadership in this program, however modest the accomplishments within any one program might seem to be. Their involvement in PFF truly reflects their professional commitment to the value and goals of the PFF program, most important of which is to facilitate the professional development of graduate students who will be the future professoriate. The goals of PFF cannot be achieved, nor can achievements be sustained, without the commitment of faculty in the degree-granting and partner institutions. Finally, achievements of the PFF scholars during the period of this grant are also noteworthy. A few of these scholars received campus and national recognition for leadership during the period of this grant, achievements noted in separate program reports as warranted. On a more general level, however, it is the graduate students who validate the purpose and value of PFF. The unequivocal enthusiasm of psychology graduate students who have participated in PFF has been evident through each of the following: the personal experiences they have shared with faculty; their participation in regional and national conferences of psychologists and psychology graduate students; published articles they have written or interviews for media in which they participated; their involvement in the two summer PFF summit conferences held during this grant period with PFF participants of other disciplines; and their roles within each of the four psychology program clusters in planning and evaluating PFF activities with faculty of their PFF lead and partner institutions. Beneficial outcomes and lessons learned from PFF programs in psychology Individually or together, the PFF programs in psychology in partnership with the APA can be credited with the following overall outcomes of benefit to the future of graduate education in psychology: ♦ Demonstrated the mutual value of college and university partnerships for undergraduate and

graduate faculty and students in psychology. ♦ Demystified for graduate students the nature of academic culture and faculty work, and

acquainted them with diverse academic settings for psychologists.

7

♦ Modeled for ethnic minority and other students interested in community service how that professional activity can be accomplished through academic work.

♦ Developed and demonstrated the feasibility of an on-line (Blackboard) short course (6

weeks) on preparing graduate students to teach in psychology. ♦ Instituted an annual workshop (1.5 days) for graduate students on developing a teaching

philosophy and preparing to teach in psychology. Of the lessons learned from the PFF programs in psychology, the following principles seem most critical if PFF is to remain or become institutionalized in graduate departments of psychology: ♦ It is essential that multiple ways for achieving the goals of PFF be recognized, and that those

goals be achieved in ways consistent with the university’s mission and culture and that of its academic graduate departments.

♦ For PFF to be sustained, it should become an integral part of the department and university

goals for graduate education in the discipline, with commitment of academic leaders and multiple departmental faculty accompanied by appropriate recognition of their roles.

♦ Whenever feasible, PFF program initiatives should make use of already existing university

resources, e.g. faculty development or teaching and learning centers, internal grant support, colloquia, etc.

♦ Involvement of graduate students in PFF activities should be planned on a flexible basis,

allowing for individual needs and interests of different graduate students in their academic and professional development.

♦ Although PFF should not be conceptualized as limited to teaching, a core element of PFF

programs should be some level of preparation for teaching in one’s discipline, ideally reflecting the integration of teaching with research and service.

Institutionalization and Future Developments of PFF in Psychology The model PFF programs in psychology Of the four model PFF programs in psychology, the UNH model clearly is the most mature in its development being institutionalized through the graduate department mission and enjoying the commitment of multiple department faculty, including the department chairperson. This maturity, of course, comes from nearly two decades of work in developing the program. During this grant period, UNH was especially helpful in working with the other PFF programs in psychology and the APA on issues of dissemination, conceptualizing ways in which to assist other graduate departments initiate and develop PFF programs. The UNH program is notably strong in its preparation of graduate students to teach in the discipline, general and specialty courses, and has developed for broad dissemination an on-line capability for guiding graduate students in their preparation to teach.

8

The Miami and Georgia PFF programs in psychology, being the only PFF programs on their respective campuses, accomplished modest yet significant outcomes during the grant period. Miami, working very closely with its partner institutions, afforded a variety of teaching and mentoring experiences within its own and partner institution psychology departments. In addition, through the PFF work, it established what is now institutionalized as an annual undergraduate research conference, held on the Miami campus each Spring, enabling graduate and undergraduate faculty and students to exchange ideas on research in the discipline. The Department of Psychology at Miami University has given strong support to the goals of PFF, has involved multiple faculty in support of PFF activities, and has included essential elements of pedagogy related to PFF in its graduate education curriculum. Georgia, also working closely with its partner institutions, made especially good progress in attracting ethnic minority students to consider the possibility of academic careers. It has done so through excellent mentoring by minority psychology faculty in the three departments participating in PFF, and through creatively adapting service learning pedagogy and the concept of “engaged scholar” to its PFF model. This was especially important for students who, prior to their PFF experience, envisioned little or no relationship between academic work and what they valued most in career objectives, namely providing public service to their communities. Due to the fact that three graduate departments were involved in PFF, the extent to which PFF will become a part of the future curriculum of each remains uncertain at this time. For reasons discussed next, however, the institutionalization of PFF on a broader basis at Georgia appear favorable at this time. The Miami and Georgia PFF program leaders in psychology are each working with their university administrations (Offices of the Graduate Deans and others) to institutionalize PFF on campus across multiple disciplines. Miami plans to use its “learning community” theme to accomplish this outcome, facilitated by the coordinator of the psychology PFF program. Georgia is exploring the possibility of a certificate program campus-wide for PFF scholars, taking a lead from the psychology PFF program. Where each will be centralized remains open; however, each is likely to be based on the principle of discipline participation from graduate departments as well as through campus-wide use of common resources. The future of PFF at Colorado (and its east coast partner Yale) is the most tenuous at this time. Each hosted excellent cluster meetings during the PFF grant period, in which faculty and students participated enthusiastically, including partner institution faculty. Each of these two large research graduate departments, however, had less depth of senior faculty involvement in PFF for a sustained commitment. At Colorado, where other disciplinary PFF programs also exist, the possibility for the various disciplines to work collaboratively with the Office of the Graduate Dean is one outcome for the future worth contemplating. The graduate students have expressed interest in maintaining PFF activities; but there needs to be commensurate commitment of faculty to the PFF goals for such a program to be sustained over the long haul. Taken together, the four PFF program models in psychology suggest a developmental continuum from exposure to issues (presenting information) to reflective practice with issues (development of knowledge). UNH graduates enter the professoriate ranks as knowledgeable and experienced by practice in issues of higher education and faculty roles as any new doctorates in America. The graduates of the other three at this point have at least been exposed to many of the issues,

9

with some gaining first-hand experience with the issues during the course of their PFF program participation. The lead author of this report, as APA PFF coordinator, plans to follow up with each of the four model programs during the next year to assess further progress, if any, particular problems encountered, and new ideas introduced into their PFF programs. Other PFF programs in psychology The APA PFF coordinator also plans to work in the year ahead with at least another 4-6 graduate departments that have expressed interest in exploring the possibility of initiating PFF programs on their campuses. One of these, Oklahoma State University, has begun already with an initial meeting. Others possibly interested include the University of Kansas, University of North Dakota, and the University of West Virginia. Prior contacts with Florida State University and Claremont Graduate University also will be re-opened. In addition, the APA PFF coordinator plans to write a letter to each psychology graduate department chair at universities having campus-wide and/or other discipline-based PFF programs to assess what involvement, if any, the psychology faculty and graduate students have with such programs, and to offer consultation to the department(s) on PFF if interested. During the past six months, the APA PFF coordinator has worked with PFF team leaders at UNH and Miami to develop a prototype model workshop for psychology faculty interested in starting PFF programs on their campus. This model will be available on the APA PFF website and can be used by interested campuses or at regional psychological association workshops. Continued support by the national disciplinary association The APA Education Directorate will continue to budget for and disseminate information on PFF-related activities and opportunities through: the APA Monitor (monthly magazine), program sessions at the annual APA convention and at meetings of regional psychological associations (of which there are seven), through listservs, at annual meetings of graduate and undergraduate education faculty in psychology, and the directorate’s graduate education website (http://www.apa.org/ed/pff.html). Included on that website will be resources available to faculty and graduate students, including a bibliography on faculty development, one of the products of this grant. A copy is enclosed as Appendix E to this report. As the APA PFF program coordinator has done during the grant period, collaboration will be maintained by the APA Education Directorate with higher education associations in an effort to bring to the discipline themes of change in undergraduate and graduate education, as well as contribute disciplinary perspectives to those conversations. Particular higher education associations with which APA has worked include: the American Association of Higher Education, the Association of American Colleges and Universities, the American Council on Education, Campus Compact, and the Council of Graduate Schools. We will continue to work cooperatively with APA Division 2, The Society for the Teaching of Psychology, on future initiatives related to faculty development. Also, we will continue to partner with Project Kaleidoscope and the Council of Undergraduate Research, each of which is promoting change in undergraduate science education.

10

Finally, as a move towards institutionalization of PFF goals, the APA Board of Educational Affairs, with support of the Education Directorate’s programs and budget, will begin next year to sponsor annual recognition awards for graduate departments of psychology promoting innovative practices, among which will be included the preparation of future faculty for undergraduate and graduate education. Other themes for innovative developments to be recognized include several that the APA has coupled with its PFF initiatives, specifically, attracting ethnic minority students to academic careers, integrating service learning and civic engagement in graduate education, and promoting interdisciplinary learning at the graduate education level. Without the PFF grant, most of these developments would not have occurred.

11

Appendix A

American Psychological Association

PFF Leadership Advisory Board

Name Affiliation Deborah Best, PhD Wake Forest University William Buskist, PhD Auburn University Stephen Davis, PhD Emporia State University Emanuel Donchin, PhD University of South Florida Jennifer Egert, PhD Mt. Sinai School of Medicine Ann Ewing, PhD Maricopa Community College Robin Hailstorks, PhD Prince George's Community College Jane Halonen, PhD James Madison University James Korn, PhD St. Louis University Wilbert McKeachie, PhD University of Michigan Barbara Nodine, PhD Beaver College Marcus Patterson Boston University Nancy Russo, PhD Arizona State University Pamela Scott-Johnson, PhD Spelman College Stanley Sue, PhD University of California, Davis Elizabeth Todd-Bazemore, PhD University of South Dakota

Appendix B

Preparing Future Faculty: Evaluation for Programs 1) An important concept governing the program design of each proposal will be the experiences

achieved by the graduate student as a teacher, scholar, and member of an academic community. The proposal should meet the criteria of defining experiences planned for the graduate student which include: a) increasingly independent and varied teaching responsibilities, b) opportunities to grow and develop as a scholar, and c) opportunities to serve the department and campus.

How well does the proposal meet the criteria of defining a formalized plan for the graduate student in teaching and other aspects of professional development?

Not Defined Well Defined

1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

2) The role of faculty who will act as mentors for the graduate student will determine the degree to which the student will achieve an understanding of the teaching and classroom experience, academic governance structure, and responsibility of faculty in community service. The proposal should include a formalized system of mentoring by faculty members across levels of education, in addition to, the possibility of graduate students acting as mentors for undergraduate students in psychology. How well does the proposal meet the criteria of defining a formalized system of mentoring for the graduate student participating in the program?

Not Defined Well Defined

1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

3) The Preparing Future Faculty concept holds that graduate students require preparation to teach and render service in a variety of institutions. The graduate student should have direct experience with diverse types of institutions. The graduate experience should socialize the future faculty member to a classroom, which represents a multicultural setting and provides a forum for teaching about diversity. The partnerships developed by the doctoral granting department will include at least four partner departments of psychology faculty from other higher education institutions, such as, liberal arts colleges, community colleges, comprehensive colleges, women’s colleges, tribal colleges, and historically black colleges and universities.

How well defined is the proposal in meeting the criteria of partnering with four departments diverse in their institutional mission?

Not Defined Well Defined

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 4) The proposal should show evidence of a commitment by the doctoral granting institution to seek-out

and graduate traditionally under-represented graduate student populations in the discipline. The partnerships and mentoring experiences outlined by the doctoral granting department should provide opportunity and academic experience for graduate students from diverse and culturally different backgrounds.

How well defined is the proposal in meeting the criteria of seeking-out and graduating traditionally under-represented graduate student populations?

Not Defined Well Defined

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 5) The sustainability of the program, after the initial funding period, will be represented by the

commitment of the institutions to integrate the new program initiatives into the existing structure of educational programs that currently prepare graduate students. The overarching concepts of the Preparing Future Faculty program will continue to influence and enhance the way academic departments prepare graduate students if the new program initiatives become a integral part of preparation programs.

How well defined is the proposal in meeting the criteria of integrating new program initiatives into future faculty preparation programs?

Not Defined Well Defined

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) The feasibility of the program, after the initial funding period, will be represented by the commitment

of the institutions to address funding costs of the program initiatives as those initiatives are integrated into the existing structure of educational programs. This includes plans for addressing the future funding costs of academic programs and graduate students participating in the initiatives.

How well defined is the proposal in meeting the criteria of addressing future costs, after the initial funding period?

Not Defined Well Defined

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 7) The Preparing Future Faculty Program concept holds that an outcome of the program is not only to

broaden the perspective of preparing future faculty, but to increase knowledge and encourage new models and promising practices about the professional development of future faculty. The proposal should define a plan for the broad dissemination of information and results within the discipline and to other disciplines. The plan should highlight the use of computer and communications technology, the incorporation of progress reports into regular meetings and communications of the discipline, and speak to the sponsorship of seminars and workshops at annual and regional meetings utilizing new models and practices.

How well defined is the proposal in meeting the criteria of disseminating information about the programs?

Not Defined Well Defined

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 8) Evaluation is an integral part of each program. Evaluation provides perspective about the breadth and

depth of the experiences provided to the graduate student. The ability of the program to review and evaluate the progress of the graduate student in meeting goals and objectives of the program, as well

as, a commitment and ability by the institutions to participate in evaluation activities are important considerations in awarding each grant.

How well defined is the proposal in meeting the criteria of reviewing and assessing the effectiveness of their programs?

Not Defined Well Defined

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) As a last evaluation factor, please provide comments as to the overall creativity of the program design as defined in the proposal:

Overall Ranking of Proposals As an additional exercise, please rank the proposals (from most desirable to least desirable). Please do not hesitate to provide comments as a compliment to the rankings. 1) Comments: 2) Comments: 3) Comments: 4) Comments: 5) Comments:

6) Comments: Additional Comments:

Appendix C

Preparing Future Faculty in Psychology

Final Narrative Reports

University of New Hampshire University of Georgia University of Colorado

Miami University

American Psychological Association Education Directorate

Office of Graduate and Postdoctoral Education Paul D. Nelson, Ph.D., Director

December 2002

University of New Hampshire's Psychology Preparing Future Faculty Program:

Final Report to American Psychological Association

Victor Benassi, Project Director Professor of Psychology

Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies Office: 603- 862-3290; 603-862-3180

Fax: 603- 862-4741 vab@cisunix.unh.edu

Psychology Department Coordinators of American Psychological Association Sponsored PFF Project

Kenneth Fuld, Professor and Department Chairperson Victoria Banyard, Associate Professor

Victor Benassi, Professor

Conant Hall, University of New Hampshire, Department of Psychology

November 22, 2002

1

PART ONE

Institutionalize PFF Making It Sustainable Without External Funds

Background on the UNH Program The University of New Hampshire (UNH) Department of Psychology Ph.D.

program was started in the mid-1960s with support from the National Science Foundation and the University of New Hampshire. The goal of the program from the start has been to prepare Ph.D. level psychologists who secure faculty positions. The department’s curriculum was designed to provide graduate students with a strong general background in psychology, opportunity to study with faculty in a specialty area, in-depth coursework in statistics and research methods, and a solid grounding in history and theory of psychology. The centerpiece of the program during the past 30 years has been the formal background students receive in the area of college teaching and other faculty roles.

The department’s Ph.D. program includes a broad set of opportunities in conjunction with other University of New Hampshire programs— the UNH Program in College Teaching and the UNH Preparing Future Faculty Program. The department’s program has been, and will continue to be, supported by permanent University funds. Program development and dissemination opportunities have been made possible by a grant from American Psychological Association and by a Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) dissemination grant to the University’s Teaching Excellence Program and the Graduate School (Partnership for Academic programs in College Teaching; PACT). In addition to coursework and research, doctoral students participate in a variety of experiences designed to prepare them for the full-range of faculty roles. These experiences vary depending on the students’ position in the program. First-year doctoral students participate in a graduate proseminar and teaching and research assistant experience. Second-year doctoral students participate in teaching and research assistant experience, coursework in the UNH Summer Institute on College Teaching, preparation for teaching in their third year, and visitations to other colleges and universities. Our partner institutions are Dartmouth College (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~psych/), Howard University (http://www.founders.howard.edu/psychology-dept/index.htm), Keene State College (http://www.keene.edu/programs/psyc/), St. Anselm College (http://www.anselm.edu/internet/psych/psych.html), and the University of New Hampshire at Manchester(http://www.unh.edu/unhm/). Third-year doctoral students participate in a two-semester Seminar and Practicum in the Teaching of Psychology, coursework in the Summer Institute on College Teaching, visitations to other colleges and universities, and they take part 1 of the specialty exam (designed to prepare graduate students for teaching a course during fourth year in their specialty area). Finally, fourth- and fifth-year doctoral students participate in teaching in their specialty area, visitations to other colleges and universities, preparation for the job search, and they take part 2 of the specialty exam (designed to prepare them for conducting their doctoral dissertation).

Graduates of the program have been successful in securing academic positions. Many of them have taken positions at liberal arts colleges and comprehensive

2

universities. Some graduates have secured positions at research universities after completing a postdoctoral research fellowship. Overview of Program It may be useful to describe the UNH program in relation to the elements that the developers of the national PPF initiative (the Association of American Colleges and Universities and the Council of Graduate Schools) proposed as the core features of PFF programs (http://www.preparing-faculty.org/PFFWeb.Contents.htm#about). First, “the PFF program addresses the full scope of faculty roles and responsibilities that include teaching, research, and service, emphasizing how the expectations for these responsibilities are often quite different in different campus settings.” Second, doctoral students who participate in a PFF program “should have multiple mentors and receive reflective feedback not only for their research activities but also for their teaching and service activities.” Third, the program emphasizes across-institution collaborations—the “cluster: an anchor, doctoral degree-granting institution or department collaborating with various partner institutions or departments.” In the sections below, the UNH PFF program is described in relation to these core features. In addition, the ways in which the Psychology program is integrated with other faculty and future faculty development initiatives at UNH is highlighted. Graduate Students’ Experiences related to Teaching, Research, and Service

Teaching Preparing to Teach a Psychology Course (GRAD 980). During the late spring of their second year in the program and over the summer, graduate students who are about to teach introductory psychology work with the next teacher of Psy 991 (see below) in order to prepare for teaching the introductory course. For the first time in 2002, students enrolled in a course (GRAD 980) and earned credit for the work they do. In GRAD 980, several topics and tasks that must be addressed early in the course preparation process provide the substance of GRAD 980: the role and function of the introductory psychology course; principles of test construction and grading practices; classroom teaching methods; selection of textbooks and other materials for the introductory psychology course; preparation of a complete course syllabus; preparation of several teaching modules that cover sections of the introductory course (http://www.unh.edu/pff/seminar/courseorg/teachunits.htm). In summer of 2002, GRAD 980 was made available to doctoral students from universities other than UNH. The course, taught on a pilot basis by Professor James Korn of Saint Louis University, was successful and will now become part of the UNH Summer Institute on College Teaching curriculum. A copy of the course syllabus may be found at http://www.unh.edu/pff/links/GRAD980Syll02.pdf. The course is scheduled to be offered again in the summer of 2003, with Dr. Paul Presson of Westminster College (Utah) joining Dr. Korn as a course teacher. Dr. Presson graduated with a PhD in Psychology from UNH in 1997. The photograph shown below is from the first day of the GRAD 980 course, held on the UNH campus in June 2002.

3

Front Row: Dr. Cecilia Shore (PFF project director, Miami University), Melissa Lea (GRAD 980 student, Miami University), Courtney Rocheleau (GRAD 980 student, University of Colorado), Ammancis Wright (GRAD 980 student, University of Connecticut), Joshua Lawrence (GRAD 980 student, University of Connecticut) Second Row: Mercedes Ebanks (GRAD 980 student, Howard University), Dr. Victor Benassi (UNH), Dr. Paul Presson (faculty member, Westminster College and former UNH graduate student), Dr. Paul Nelson (Education Directorate, APA), Dr. James Korn (GRAD 980 course instructor, faculty member, Saint Louis University)

Seminar and Practicum in the Teaching of Psychology. The department offers a

Seminar and Practicum in the Teaching of Psychology each fall (Psy 991) and spring (Psy 992) semester. Professors Victoria Banyard, Victor Benassi, Kenneth Fuld, and Peter Fernald each teach one of the courses on a regular basis. This seminar and practicum provides third-year teaching doctoral students with an academic foundation for teaching psychology. Concurrent with the seminar, students teach one section of Introductory Psychology during the fall and spring semesters. The seminar includes coverage of theories and research related to teaching and learning. It also covers topics such as testing, grading, student evaluations of teachers, classroom assessment methods, academic citizenship, cognitive development of college students, and psychological theories of pedagogy. In addition, students receive group and individual supervision of their teaching of Introductory Psychology. The Psy 991-992 instructor observes doctoral students in a classroom setting during a semester while they are teaching and students are videotaped while teaching. They review the tape with the Psy 991-992 teacher.

Over the past several years, the department has been strengthening three areas of this course (technology and teaching; classroom assessment; gender issues in teaching). Professor Fuld introduced, in collaboration with Professor Victoria Banyard, an updated

4

unit on using technology in college teaching. Most of our teaching graduate students have received training in the use of Blackboard (http://www.blackboard.com) and now use this tool in their teaching. In Psy 992, Professor Fernald integrated Patricia Cross and Thomas Angelo's classroom assessment and research approach (e.g., Classroom Assessment Techniques, 1993, Jossey-Bass) and included a new unit on gender issues in college teaching. Professor Victoria Banyard developed and taught a semester-long graduate course dealing with gender issues in teaching and learning. This course, offered through the UNH Program in College Teaching, was taken by a variety of students, including several involved in Psychology’s PFF program.

Teaching Courses in Specialty Areas. The department implemented a new policy in 2001 on specialty examinations. This new policy specifies that students complete two specialty requirements. The first requirement is an exam that is geared toward preparing students to teach a survey course in their specialty area. The second requirement focuses on more in-depth study in students’ areas of research specialization. After successfully completing the first requirement students are eligible to teach a lower-division course in their specialty area.

G raduate Student Russ Kosits teaching StatisticsG raduate Student Russ Kosits teaching Statistics

G raduate Student Jennifer Feenstra teaching G raduate Student Jennifer Feenstra teaching Social PsychologySocial Psychology

5

During their fourth and fifth years of graduate study, Psychology doctoral

students teach a survey course in their specialty area (e.g., social psychology, cognition, psychobiology, development) and often an introductory course in statistics. (They have already completed three or more graduate courses in quantitative and research methods.) Whereas only the seminar/practicum teacher supervises teaching during the third year, doctoral students’ research mentors are expected to assist in overseeing the teaching of specialty courses. Prior to teaching a specialty course, doctoral students are required to submit their syllabus to faculty in that area in addition to one of the Psy 991-992 teachers. Faculty members provide advice and feedback on the content, structure, and requirements of the course.

Coursework in Summer Institute on College Teaching. The UNH Summer Institute on College Teaching (http://www.gradschool.unh.edu/pff/pff_institute.html) includes the following courses: Teaching with Writing; Cognition, Teaching, and Learning; Classroom Research and Assessment; Academic Citizenship; College Students and the Undergraduate Culture. Psychology doctoral students may enroll in any of these courses. Most of the doctoral students in the department work toward earning either a cognate or a master’s degree in college teaching in conjunction with securing the PhD degree (http://www.gradschool.unh.edu/pff/pff_academic.html).

Graduate Student Research Psychology doctoral students are expected to work on research from the

beginning of their graduate studies. The nature and level of involvement varies with students’ prior background, interests, and seniority in the graduate program. Graduate students continue to be productive, as evidenced by presentations at research conferences and by publications. An earlier survey conducted within the department indicated that the modal student graduated with two publications to her or his credit (Benassi & Fernald, 1993). The research profile of the department’s graduate students has been similar during the 1990s.

Rob Drugan with first year Graduate Student Rob Drugan with first year Graduate Student John ChristiansonJohn Christianson

Ken Ken Fuld’sFuld’svision lab with graduate students vision lab with graduate students Jim Jim StringhamStringham and Adam W enzeland Adam W enzel

6

Ellen Cohn’s Social Psychology Lab M eetingEllen Cohn’s Social Psychology Lab M eeting

Undergraduate Student Research Over the past decade, many of the department’s doctoral students have worked, in

collaboration with their research advisors, with undergraduate psychology majors who seek to acquire first-hand research experience. In such cases, a contract is prepared and provided to the department chairperson for review and approval. The undergraduate student must also sign the contract. This type of experience has been beneficial to our graduate students and helpful during the job search, as many hiring departments seek candidates who are able to immediately involve students in their research program. Service

Psychology doctoral students are routinely involved in service activities for the department (e.g., hiring committee), Graduate School (e.g., Graduate Student Organization), and University (e.g., Women’s Commission). Faculty advisors encourage graduate students to become involved in one or more service activities. Informal surveys of program graduates have indicated that their prior experience with service activities as graduate students has served them well both during the job interview process and on the job.

Other Elements of the PFF Experience Job Search. The preliminary stages of the process begin during students’ third

year of graduate study, when the teacher of Psy 991 and faculty advisors assist them in preparing a curriculum vitae and the beginnings of a portfolio. During the year that a student begins the job search, his/her faculty advisor and faculty who are responsible for the overall PFF effort in the department offer advise and assistance on identifying job

7

openings, preparing cover letters, and finalizing the portfolio. As the process continues, students develop both research and teaching oriented presentations. Faculty and other students critique these presentations. As students prepare for job interviews, they are provided with appropriate background material on the type of institution they will be visiting [e.g., G. W. Wilson. (1992). Good start: A guide for new faculty in liberal arts colleges, Bolton, MA: Anker].

Portfolio. All Psychology graduate students are required to develop a teaching portfolio in Psy 992, the guidelines for which are located at http://www.gradschool.unh.edu/pff/portfolio.pdf. Some students have developed more comprehensive portfolios that covered a broader array of their PFF experiences.

Increase Involvement and Participation by Faculty and Graduate Students

Graduate Proseminar (Psy 901-902). First-year doctoral students in the department take a two-semester proseminar, taught most recently by Professor Peter Fernald. The proseminar provides an important first formal orientation to Psychology doctoral students on such issues as research and professional ethics and on identifying and working with a faculty mentor. The seminar focuses on the following areas: forming an identity as a psychologist; meeting department faculty and learning about their scholarly interests and perspectives on both the science of psychology and graduate education); establishing relationships with faculty; developing first-year talk (prepare a high quality end-of-the-year research presentation). The proseminar includes presentations by Psychology faculty, staff of the Graduate School, the Director of the Teaching Excellence Program, the Psychology Department's administrative coordinator, and advanced graduate students. A PFF Project Coordinator provides detailed information on the department and University-wide efforts in faculty development.

Annual Department-wide Meeting. The Psychology PFF Project coordinators lead a department-wide meeting of all Psychology doctoral students and faculty that deals with the department’s PFF initiative. We provide an update on all aspects of the department’s and university’s programs as well as the national PFF initiative. In addition, discussion focuses on ways in which faculty could encourage and support students’ involvement in PFF activities. In addition to the value of these sessions to new graduate students, they also provide new faculty members with an important orientation to our graduate program.

Former Graduate Students Visits to UNH. We have invited graduates of our PhD program to campus. Dr. Timothy Otto (Rutgers University, New Brunswick), Dr. Gary Goldstein (University of New Hampshire, Manchester), Dr. Yue Ping Zhang (DePauw University), Dr. Paul Presson (Westminster College, Utah), and others have interacted with our doctoral students during visits to campus.

Embed PFF in the Academic Department

As described in the opening section of this report, PFF has been, and continues to

be, woven into the Department of Psychology’s doctoral program and into the overall fabric of the department. We have gone further by working over the years to integrate the

8

department’s PFF Program with other UNH faculty and future faculty development efforts.

Graduate students in the Psychology doctoral program are urged to avail themselves of programs and resources the University offers in the faculty development area— University-wide PFF program, Academic Program in College Teaching, Summer Institute on College Teaching, and Teaching Excellence Program. Most Psychology students work toward earning the Cognate in College Teaching (a minor granted in conjunction with the conferral of the Ph.D. degree), while a smaller percentage work toward earning a separate Master’s in College Teaching (a non-thesis degree that is also granted in conjunction with conferral of the Ph.D. degree) (http://www.gradschool.unh.edu/PFF/pff_academic.html). Students earn academic credit toward the Cognate or the Master’s by taking courses in the UNH Summer Institute on College Teaching (http://www.gradschool.unh.edu/pff/pff_institute.html). UNH Psychology faculty members (Professors Banyard, Benassi, Fuld, and O’Brien) and a psychology professor from a PFF cluster campus (Professor Gary Goldstein, UNH at Manchester) have taught in the Academic Program in College Teaching. UNH sponsors a University-wide PFF Program (http://www.gradschool.unh.edu/pff/) and Psychology doctoral students are encouraged to participate in program activities such as the PFF Breakfast series (http://www.gradschool.unh.edu/pff/pff_events.html#breakfast). The Director of the UNH Teaching Excellence Program (http://www.unh.edu/teaching-excellence/index.html) provides support to PFF students, including those in Psychology, in a variety of ways—for example, by serving on teaching committees (a component of the Cognate and Master’s programs) and helping students to understand their teaching evaluations.

Establish and Maintain Institutional Partnerships

The department’s PFF leaders have been building relationships with faculty at

PFF cluster partner institutions by arranging visits to their campuses so that our doctoral students meet faculty from places different from UNH and assess where areas of mutual interest and background may exist. The Psychology Campus Visits Program was initiated during the period of funding provided by APA (although Psychology students participated in the University’s campus visit program prior to APA funding). The department has sponsored visits to Howard University, St. Anselm College, University of New Hampshire at Manchester, Keene State College, and Dartmouth College. UNH doctoral students benefit from campus visits in a variety of ways and develop an understanding of the cultures, missions, and traditions of different types of institutions. By the time they have visited several campuses, PFF students have formed impressions about several very different types of institutions. For example, our students have been impressed with the way faculty at St. Anselm College involve undergraduate students in research projects. Our students develop a strong sense of the mission of the UNH Manchester campus, with its focus on adult non-traditional learners. They learn about an urban, historically black college and research university during their visit to Howard University. At Keene State College, our students are impressed by the faculty’s commitment to the college’s mission as a public undergraduate liberal arts institution. Students learn from faculty how important it is to select a place of employment that fits

9

their professional and personal goals. At Dartmouth College, our PFF students are exposed to academic life at an institution that is both a liberal arts college and, in effect, a research university with strong doctoral programs in selected areas (including Psychology). Partner Institution Departments, Institutions, Department Representatives Partner Department Institution Department Representative Psychology Dartmouth Professor Ann Clark Psychology Howard Professor Albert Roberts Psychology Keene State Professors Neil Montgomery and Linda Baker Psychology St. Anselm Professors Elizabeth Ossoff and Paul Finn Psychology UNH-M Professors Gary Goldstein and Alison Paglia

Document Benefits to Students Seeking Academic Careers

Job Seeking and Placement. We annually monitor the performance of our Ph.D. students’ success in securing academic job interviews and offers. Since the early 1990s, about 70% of our graduates have secured faculty positions. If we only include those students who attempted to find an academic position, the percentage is even higher. (A few graduates of our program seek career opportunities outside of academe—e.g., business, industry, consulting.) These placement rates are similar to those reported by Benassi and Fernald (1993, Teaching of Psychology) for students who had graduated from the 1960s through 1980s). Indeed, across the 35 year history of the program, about 70% of our graduates obtained a faculty position. Some of these graduates first completed a post-doctoral fellowship before applying for a faculty position and some eventually left their faculty position for other opportunities.

Examples of institutions at which graduates of the program secured positions, either as a first or a subsequent job, include the following: Armstrong Atlantic State University, Brigham Young University, Centro de Estudios e Investigaciones en Comportamineto (Mexico), Chapman University, Creighton University, DePauw University, Drew University, Emmanuel College, Hobart and William Smith College, Hood College, Lamar university, New England College, Rutgers University—New Brunswick, St. Anselm College, Stephen F. Austin State University, SUNY—New Platz, SUNY—Stony Brook, University of Canterbury (New Zealand), University of Georgia, University of Hartford, University of Michigan (Institute for Social Research), University of Mississippi, University of Nebraska, Westminster College, Wheaton College, Willamette University, William and Mary.

Preparation in Graduate School for Teaching Responsibilities as a Faculty Member. Graduates of the UNH doctoral program have had formal coursework in college teaching as well as supervised teaching experience. They have prepared and taught the introductory psychology course, a lower-division course in their specialty area, and most likely a beginning statistics course. This experience, coupled with their research training/experience and their involvement in other faculty roles (e.g., service, supervising students’ research), puts them in an excellent position upon starting their first academic job. This preparation in graduate schools inoculates these students from the kind of

10

experience of some new faculty. For example, Robert Boice (1992, The New Faculty Member, Jossey-Bass) described the experiences of new faculty members from two different institutions—a research university and a large public comprehensive university. During the first several years into their pre-tenure period, many of these faculty spent inordinate amounts of time preparing for and worrying about their teaching duties. Moreover, these faculty members often reported that they had little time to develop their scholarly records. Although some were optimistic at the end of their first semester of teaching that the situation would improve—“As soon as I have my classes under control, I’m going to spend a lot more time on my writing” (Boice, 1992, p. 59)—improvements were slow to come for some faculty. For others, the situation did not improve, resulting in a poor overall pre-tenure record of teaching and/or scholarship.

Benassi, O’Brien, & Seidel (described in Seidel, Benassi, and Richards, 2003, in press) administered a survey to a sample of faculty who were hired during the 1996-1997 or 1997-1998 academic years and to the chairs of their academic departments. Over 1800 faculty and over 800 department chairs from more than 120 colleges or universities returned surveys. Department chairs tended to agree that newly hired faculty in their department would have benefited from additional training in college teaching while in graduate school and that graduate schools do not place sufficient emphasis on preparing graduate students for college-level teaching roles. Also, the newly hired faculty tended to agree that their graduate program did not place sufficient emphasis on preparing them for their role as a college-level teacher. Our emphasis on preparing our graduate students for teaching duties is supported by such results.

Documenting Skills and Competencies of our Ph.D. Students. Students in our program are now routinely developing a portfolio that documents their accomplishments during graduate school in the area of teaching, research, and service. The portfolio includes information on courses and other experiences the students had that contributed to their development as “colleagues-in-training.” We will be posting examples of these portfolios on a new PFF website that we are developing in the department.

Track Careers of PFF Alumni

The department keeps track of students who graduate with a PhD in a variety of ways, including occasional follow up surveys, interactions between advisors and former students, etc. The Department of Psychology website maintains a list of the names of graduates of the doctoral program, along with information on their employment. A department administrative assistant maintains and periodically updates a master list of former doctoral students. Over the years, the department has conducted formal surveys of graduates of the program. A survey of people who graduated since 1990 is in the planning stages and will be conducted during the winter of 2003. The last published results of a survey of program graduate appear in Benassi and Fernald, “Preparing tomorrow's psychologists for careers in academe” (Teaching of Psychology, 1993, 20, 149-155).

11

Disseminate PFF in the Discipline

The Education Directorate of the American Psychological Association (APA) oversees and provides national leadership for the Preparing Future Faculty Program in Psychology (http://www.apa.org/ed/pff.html). APA received support from the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) and the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS). In turn, APA selected four programs to develop and disseminate their PFF in Psychology programs. As part of its commitment, UNH PFF faculty leaders—both faculty and doctoral students—have been actively involved in a variety of ways to disseminate approaches that other doctoral granting psychology programs could adapt to meet the needs of their doctoral students who seek to develop a career in academe. Some examples of dissemination activities include presentations at the annual APA convention, participation in other national and regional meetings, meeting with faculty from other psychology doctoral programs to discuss the PFF initiative and UNH’s efforts in that area. A detailed list is provided below of dissemination activities that date back to the 1990s. Activities Since 2000 The UNH Department of Psychology is committed to recruiting, admitting, and enrolling students with strong academic records who seek to develop a career as a faculty member within a college or university setting. The department has undertaken an initiative to increase both the size and diversity of our graduate admissions applicant pool. We developed PowerPoint slide presentation shows the areas the department highlights in its recruitment efforts (special thanks to Professors Ellen Cohn and Kenneth Fuld and to doctoral student Michael Cofrin for preparing these slides): http://www.unh.edu/pff/images/Recruitment.pps. Faculty and graduate students have shown the PowerPoint presentation at other institutions when they make visits to those campuses. Dr. Paul Nelson (Education Directorate, APA), Dr. Cecilia Shore (Miami University), and Victor Benassi have been preparing to offer a PFF dissemination workshop at Oklahoma State University. A visit OSU, planned for November 2002, has been postponed to spring 2003. Professor Victor Benassi and Professor Lee Seidel of the UNH Teaching Excellence Program created a new course titled “Preparing to Teach a Psychology Course” (GRAD 980). The course, details of which are described earlier in this report, was developed with support from APA and UNH’s Partnership for Academic programs in College Teaching (PACT) grant. The course was offered to non-UNH doctoral students this past summer. The plan is to continue to offer this course to an increasing number of non-UNH students over the next several summers. Professors Kenneth Fuld and Victor Benassi met with the chair of the Dartmouth College Psychology Department (Dr. Howard Hughes) during a campus visit to Hanover in 2001 and discussed the UNH PFF model and UNH’s interest in assisting Dartmouth if the

12

department wishes to provide PFF-like opportunities for its doctoral students. As an initial gesture, UNH invited Dartmouth doctoral students to participate in a course in our summer institute. Three students enrolled in and completed the Issues in College Teaching course (GRAD 950). Victor Benassi, Jennifer Feenstra (UNH doctoral student), and Michael Cofrin (UNH doctoral student) have worked on developing and organizing material for a UNH Psychology PFF website (still in development): http://www.unh.edu/pff/index.html. Publications: College Teaching as a Professional Field of Study. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, in press, 2003 (Seidel, Benassi, and Richards). The University of New Hampshire Preparing Future Psychology Faculty Program. In preparation for submission to the Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, special issue on PFF (Benassi and Fuld). Talks: The University of New Hampshire’s Preparing Future Psychology Faculty Program. Presentation as part of a Symposium on Model Programs for Training the New Psychology Professoriate, at 110th Annual Convention of the American psychological Association, Chicago, IL, August 2002 (Benassi and Fuld; presented by Fuld). The American Psychological Association’s Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) Program in Psychology. Presentation as part of a Symposium on Preparing Future Faculty for Scholarship in Teaching, Research, and Service, at 109th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA, August 2001 (Benassi). National Study of Newly Hired Faculty and Their Department Chairs: Academy in the 21st Century. Talk given at the national meeting of the Association of American Colleges and Universities, New Orleans, January 2001. (Benassi). Preparing for Future Faculty Positions: What You Need To Know. Presentation at 109th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA, August 2001. Jennifer Feenstra, Psychology doctoral student, participated in a symposium on PFF. Professor Rob Drugan and Doctoral Student Ingrid Farreras gave a poster presentation on the UNH Psychology doctoral program at the annual New England Psychological Association meeting, Bates College, Maine, October 2000.

13

Dissemination Activities Prior to APA Funding in 2000 Publications: Preparing Psychology Graduate Students For The Professoriate. American Psychologist, 1995, 50, 421-427 (Fernald, P.S.). Using teaching modules to train and supervise graduate TAs. In K. G. Lewis (Ed.), The TA experience: Preparing for multiple roles, 1994, 183-188. New Forums Press (Benassi, Jordan, and Harrison). Preparing tomorrow's psychologists for careers in academe. Teaching of Psychology, 1993, 20, 149-155. (Benassi and Fernald). The University of New Hampshire Model for preparing psychology doctoral students to become teacher/scholars. In Nyquist, Abbott, Wulff, & Spraque, Preparing the professoriate of tomorrow to teach, 1991, Kendall/Hunt. (Benassi and Fernald). Talks: The Comprehensive Program for TAs, Future Faculty, and Faculty Development. Symposium at Sixth National Conference on the Education and Employment of Graduate Teaching Assistants, Minneapolis, MN, November, 1997 (Seidel, Benassi, and Fraser). The University of New Hampshire’s Five Year program for Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers. Paper presented as part of a symposium (“Educating Tomorrow’s Teachers of Psychology: Two Sides of the Fence”) at the meetings of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL. August, 1997 (Benassi). Preparing Future Faculty Using Academic Programs in College Teaching. Presentation at Lilly New England Conference on College Teaching, Durham, NH, September, 1997 (Seidel and Benassi). Preparing graduate students to teach using a joint degree program. II. Presentation at Lilly New England Conference on College Teaching, Durham, NH, September, 1996 (Seidel and Benassi). Teaching-related experience and the hiring process: A study of new faculty and department chairs at the University of New Hampshire. Presentation at Annual meeting of Project Directors of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, October 1996 (Benassi, O'Brien, and Seidel). Doctoral students as teachers of undergraduates. Presented at Teaching Undergraduates: Lessons Learned at New England Land Grant Universities, Sponsored by Lilly Endowment and Center for Teaching at UMASS Amherst, Durham, NH, 1996.

14

Preparing faculty to teach using a joint degree program. Presentation at Lilly New England Conference on College Teaching, Durham, NH, September, 1995 (Seidel and Benassi). Using teaching modules to train and supervise graduate TAs. Presentation at 3rd National Conference on the training and Employment of Teaching Assistants, Austin, Texas, November, 1991 (Benassi, Jordan, and Harrison). Preparing psychology doctoral students to become teacher- scholars: The University of New Hampshire model. Paper presented to Second National Conference on the Training and Employment of Teaching Assistants, Seattle, WA, November, 1989. (Benassi and Fernald).

Anticipate and Prepare for Emerging and Future Faculty Roles

The University of New Hampshire, including the Department of Psychology, is one of a group of American graduate degree granting institutions at the forefront of “Emerging and Future Faculty Roles.” In an article titled “Will Reforms Survive? Strategies for Sustaining Preparing Future Faculty Programs” (Liberal Education, 2002, Vol. 88, No. 3), Ferren, Gaff, and Clayton-Pederson cited the UNH Department of Psychology PFF program as an exemplar (p. 19). Since the mid-1990s, faculty and administrators from the University of New Hampshire have been involved in the national preparing future faculty initiative. Professor Benassi, Professor Lee Seidel (UNH Teaching Excellence Program), and Dean Harry Richards (UNH Graduate School) have been especially active participants in the national dialogue led by AAC&U and CGS.

15

PART TWO

What was your most successful and effective PFF activity?

It is difficult to pick a single activity, but the work we do in preparing our doctoral students for teaching roles and responsibilities is the hallmark of our program. The other opportunities we provide our students (partner institution campus visits, opportunities to work on research with undergraduate students, preparation for job interviews, etc.) are great, but the work we do to prepare them to be effective teachers is our best success.

What was your greatest challenge and how did you handle it?

There was not any single “greatest challenge” during the course of the grant. As we have a well-established program, our focus was on refining our model, developing some new initiatives, and working on dissemination activities (including making some of what we offer available to doctoral students from other institutions; e.g., GRAD 980 course).

What recognitions or awards have been presented to PFF students during this project (or to PFF faculty for their PFF work)?

The department recognizes the work and contributions of PFF participants in a variety of ways. For example, we have provided financial support to a number of students to attend conferences on teaching or to attend the national AAC&U meeting. In addition, students who have completed the third year seminar and practicum in teaching are treated to a lunch at a nice restaurant. Below, Professor Peter Fernald poses with a recent group of PFF teachers.

16

The department has a tradition in which students who have completed the seminar and practicum (and have taught introductory psychology twice) “pass the chalk” to the cohort of second-year graduate students. Below are photos of two Passing the Chalk ceremonies. For a more complete group of photos check out this URL: http://www.unh.edu/psychology/fishbowl.htm

“Passing the Chalk” in 2002 “Passing the Chalk” in 1998

The department also recognizes the work of faculty who are heavily involved in the PFF initiative. Faculty members who teach either GRAD 991 or 991 (Seminar and Practicum in the Teaching of Psychology) do so as part of their normal teaching load. This work is evaluated and recognized in annual reviews and in post-tenure reviews of faculty. In addition, all faculty in the department are expected to work with our doctoral students—as teachers, research and teaching advisors, etc. This work is evaluated in annual reviews, during tenure and promotion deliberations, and in post-tenure reviews.

What recommendations for designing or operating future PFF programs can you provide?

The UNH Psychology PFF program has a firm departmental, college, and university

footing and a steady funding stream. This consistent commitment and support are essential to the program’s success. For those who seek to develop a PFF program within their department, our advice is to begin on a small scale—e.g., a proseminar like the one we describe in this report; a course on college teaching geared toward assisting teaching doctoral students; an informal PFF breakfast series that informs doctoral students about faculty roles, responsibilities, and the job search (http://www.gradschool.unh.edu/pff/pff_events.html#breakfast). Based on initial successes, it will be necessary to garner support from key members of the department and from your school/college and graduate deans. The graduate dean will likely be knowledgeable about PFF and, if a university has a university-wide PFF program, it will probably be administered through the graduate school. Finally, we advise that

17

departments with little or no experience with PFF-like initiatives take advantage of the experience and expertise of the PFF leaders at the four universities that APA supports as model programs (http://www.apa.org/ed/pffmodel.html) and Dr. Paul Nelson of the APA Education Directorate. As the landscape of doctoral education continues to change (see http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/CID/index.htm), traditional programs that prepare doctoral students primarily as scholars/researchers will be viewed increasingly as offering necessary but insufficient preparation for a productive faculty career. Brian Coppola, in a recent Chronicle of Higher Education (August 9, 2002, B16) piece succinctly made the point: The “infrastructure for scholarly development must be broadened to give students the skills for teaching and service as well [as those to do research.] Professors of the future should arrive on campus as capable of carrying out the full obligations of being faculty members as they are of performing disciplinary research today.”

18

Preparing Future Faculty Final Narrative Report

Rosemary E. Phelps, Ph.D.

Department of Counseling and Human Development Services College of Education University of Georgia

Fall 2002 PART ONE Please indicate how has your PFF program has accomplished the following themes/goals of PFF. Include as appropriate: current or ongoing activities and opportunities and any challenges that are influencing progress.

1) institutionalize PFF making it sustainable without external funds

The UGA PFF program is in the process of developing a graduate certificate in College Teaching and Faculty Preparation that would be based on our PFF in Psychology model. At this point, there are two options available in moving this certificate program forward: (a) to develop a free-standing graduate certificate program, or (b) possibly collaborate with other programs that have been developed in this area (e.g., the Postdoctoral Fellows Program housed in the Institute of Higher Education. There are advantages to both; however, collaborating with an already existing program has the potential to provide some institutional funding. In addition, several of our partners have provided some funding through adjunct faculty monies for those PFF psychology students who teach in their departments.

2) increase involvement and participation by faculty and graduate students

We are finding that other faculty members are interested in the PFF program but have not become actively involved in the program. We think this will change once we develop a set curriculum for the graduate certificate program. We also have a PFF graduate from New Hampshire on faculty in the Department of Psychology and feel that we will be able to involve him and others in the PFF program at the University of Georgia. We are finding that our best source of increasing involvement of the graduate students in our various programs and different departments has been through the students involved in the program. They have served as wonderful ambassadors and letting students know the benefits of the PFF

Phelps 2

program. In addition, we will continue to use our departmental listservs and student organizations to inform potential students about the program.

3) embed PFF in the academic department

The Counseling Psychology program in the Department of Counseling and Human Development Services has decided to include PFF as one of the tracks available to Counseling Psychology doctoral students based on the results of the program and the enthusiasm of the PFF students. There would be one PFF course that all of the Counseling Psychology students would take and then those students interested in exploring the possibility of an academic career would complete additional PFF coursework and experiences.

4) establish and maintain institutional partnerships

Currently several of our institutional partnerships are maintained through individual connections with various faculty at the partner institutions. It is our hope to continue those relationships and to also get additional administrators at our partner institutions more involved with the ongoing partnerships. We have seen the benefits of having administrative support at various levels through our involvement with Kennesaw State University.

5) document benefits to students seeking academic careers

Currently, we have student journal information to help us document the benefits of the program. This information has been gathered for students during their early participation in the program. We plan to continue gathering written information from them throughout the program as well as to conduct exit interviews with them in order to get additional documentation of the benefits of the PFF program.

6) track careers of PFF alumni

We have had only one PFF cohort to finish the UGA program, and those students have informally kept us informed of their academic and career pursuits. We plan to implement a more formal procedure in which we will send out annual surveys to get an update on their career activities.

Phelps 3

7) disseminate PFF in the discipline

We have made PFF-related presentations at regional teaching and psychology conferences as well as the annual APA conference and plan to continue to present our work on PFF. In addition, we plan to also disseminate PFF in the discipline through various publications. Julio Rojas had an article about PFF and his UGA PFF experience published in the APAGS Newsletter.

8) anticipate and prepare for emerging and future faculty roles

We have found our involvement with the higher education community through organizations such as AAHE, AAC&U, and ACE to be quite helpful in staying abreast of the emerging higher education trends and future faculty roles. Information gathered from these organizations will be useful in providing the most up-to-date information in these areas to our PFF students.

PART TWO

1) What was your most successful and effective PFF activity?

Several key general activities come to mind: (a) the incorporation of service-learning into our PFF program as a primary focus, (b) our recruitment and retention of members of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, (c) the career development focus of the program, and (d) a focus on the integration of the tripartite mission of teaching, research, and service.

2) What was your greatest challenge and how did you handle it?

One of the greatest challenges has been issues of scheduling and differing philosophies when three departments and two college units are involved. We have continued to be flexible and open about how to help meet the needs of all of our students.

3) What recognitions or awards have been presented to PFF students during

this project (or to PFF faculty for their PFF work)?

Phelps 4

The UGA program and faculty have been recognized locally and nationally in several publications (e.g., COLUMNS university newsletter; Public Service and Outreach Magazine; College of Education Magazine, APA Monitor). We have had two PFF students to receive the AAHE K. Patricia Cross Future Leaders Award: Sigrid Kennebrew in 2001 and Julio Rojas in 2002. They were both nominated by partner faculty. Both were spotlighted in the APA Monitor and their honor was recognized in Black Issues in Higher Education and the Hispanic Outlook. Natasha Howard was also spotlighted in the APA Monitor as part of the APA Conference in San Francisco on PFF. In addition, Sigrid Kennebrew received honorable mention in the APPIC Dissertation Award Competition and was the 2002 UGA nominee for the CGS/UMI Distinguished Dissertation Award in the field of Social Sciences.

4) What recommendations for designing or operating future PFF programs can you provide?

We would offer the following recommendations: (a) work as closely as possible with the Graduate School in implementing a PFF program, (b) if possible, seek funding beyond the departmental level when designing a PFF program, and (c) see what initiatives are already underway at the institution and look for ways to collaborate on activities and resources.

Preparing Future Faculty in Psychology Final Narrative Report

University of Colorado, Yale University, Colorado College, and Connecticut College Part One: Accomplishment of Goals as Set Forth in the Grant Proposal In the proposal submitted to the American Psychological Association, our cluster set the following goals for the program:

The goals of the Colorado-Connecticut Preparing Future Psychology Faculty Project are four-fold. The first goal is to provide faculty at all partner institutions with the opportunity to mentor graduate students while exchanging ideas and resources with each other. The second goal is to provide graduate students from CU-Boulder and Yale with the opportunity to explore faculty life in four very different environments. The third goal is to bring diversity to the PFF project in faculty and student participation and in the content covered in discussions among the four partnering institutions. And the fourth goal is to expose undergraduate students from Colorado College and Connecticut College to graduate studies in psychology.

We believe that although we have met some of these goals, challenges remain in meeting others. In particular, we have made great progress in providing graduate students with the opportunity to explore faculty life in different environments. Graduate students from the University of Colorado have obtained first-hand information on faculty life by visiting a liberal arts college (Colorado College), a military academy (U.S. Air Force Academy), and a private research-oriented university (Yale University). Similarly, graduate students from Yale University obtained first-hand information on faculty life by visiting a liberal arts college (Connecticut College) and a public research-oriented university (University of Colorado). In addition, the students learned about faculty life at other schools during our cluster conferences, specifically they heard from faculty at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, Southern Connecticut State University, and Quinnipiac University. Additional information on faculty life has been provided for graduate students through panel discussions and seminars at the home institutions. This spring, our third cluster conference will bring together faculty and graduate students from a variety of Colorado universities and colleges. We have also made progress in addressing diversity in higher education as an important component of the preparing future faculty program. During both cluster conferences (fall, 2001, and fall, 2002) we discussed diversity in higher education, directly and in the context of service learning and teaching non-traditional students. At the upcoming cluster conference, we will again invite discussants from the multicultural center to discuss diversity with the faculty and students. Although we have provided the graduate students with the opportunity to be mentored by faculty at the partner institutions, few have taken advantage of that opportunity. Several graduate students have visited the colleges independently, shadowing faculty and giving presentations. However, only one graduate students spent extensive time (i.e., more than a day) with a college professor. The reasons for the students’ lack of participation in this aspect of PFF is likely due to a lack of time and other demands (e.g., research and teaching responsibilities at their home institutions).

Finally, we have not made as much progress as we would like with regard to exposing undergraduate students at the partner schools to information on graduate schools. To some degree, there has been difficulty in coordinating schedules between schools (e.g., Colorado College in on a block system, whereas the University of Colorado is on a standard semester system). Therefore, one of the goals of the third cluster conference is to provide events for undergraduate students from Colorado College and other area schools. Responses to Specific Questions

1) institutionalize PFF making it sustainable without external funds

In spring, 2001, I met with university officials, faculty from other PFF discipline programs, and a member of the CU board of regents to discuss ways in which we could fund the PFF programs after the external funding ends. Laura Border, director of the CU Graduate Teacher Program, was going to follow-up with us after the meeting. I did not hear anything further. As a consequence I am assuming that there are no additional funds for departmental PFF programs at CU. I believe that the Yale University Graduate School has supplied some funds for PFF activities, although the future of that funding is unclear. There are faculty and graduate students at both CU and Yale who are interested in seeing some of the PFF activities continue after external funding ends. For example, there is a group of graduate students who have formed a PFF committee at CU to plan activities this year (e.g., panel discussions and faculty presentations). I believe there is a similar group at Yale.

2) increase involvement and participation by faculty and graduate students

Student involvement in our PFF program occurs in a drop-in basis. There are about 6-8 students at CU and at Yale who attend regularly, and probably another 5-10 who attend more sporadically depending on their interest in the specific activity. Many students express a lot of interest in the activities but they often have other commitments that prevent them from attending. The two primary faculty at CU (myself and Angela Bryan) will be scaling back our involvement in PFF (Dr. Bryan is pre-tenure and has a new baby and I will be going on sabbatical). There are currently no other CU faculty who are interested in getting more involved. I do not know what Geoffrey Cohen’s plans are at Yale. Since he, like Dr. Bryan, is pre-tenure I would guess that his involvement will also diminish.

3) embed PFF in the academic department

It is my belief that PFF – as it was originally designed – will not continue in the Psychology department at CU. It would be ideal if the program could be centralized and merged with the campus-based program, but still maintain a disciplinary focus. Unfortunately there has been very little interaction with the campus-based program (CU Graduate Teacher Program) and the graduate students have not found that program to be very helpful or relevant for their concerns.

4) establish and maintain institutional partnerships

Although the partnerships we developed with Yale University and Connecticut College were wonderful and provided rich experiences for the graduate students, the geographical distance

between those schools and CU (and Colorado College) make it impossible to maintain active partnerships in the future. Thus, we are turning our attention to building relationships with area schools. For example, this spring we will be hosting our third and final PFF in psychology conference at CU and we are working to involve faculty and students from neighboring colleges and universities.

5) track careers of PFF alumni

Evaluation of our PFF program has been qualitative thus far. Following each event, I talk to the students about their impressions: What they did and did not like, what they would like to see in the future, etc. I have also asked them to write brief "reports." This evaluation has appeared in my reports to APA. In the original grant proposal, the Graduate Teacher Program stated that they would conduct a comprehensive evaluation through surveys. However, I have not had much luck with getting their help and I do not have the resources to conduct a comprehensive evaluation myself. Most of our PFF participants have not yet graduated. However, there are a couple of PFF alumni who are currently employed in academic settings. Micah Thompson (an alumni of the campus-based PFF program) is teaching at Framingham State College in MA, Alison Lenton has a temporary assistant professor position at Cambridge University in the U.K., and Barbara Fasolo has a postdoctoral position at the Max Plank institute in Germany.

6) anticipate and prepare for emerging and future faculty roles

At our fall, 2001, conference at Yale University, Bill Rando, director of the Yale Graduate Teacher Program, led an interactive session on preparing for academic job interviews. In spring, 2002, a group of graduate students and postdocs at CU who had recently been on interviews led a panel discussion on what job interviews are like. Also that spring, Dr. Bill Klein from Colby College (now at University of Pittsburgh) led a discussion at CU on applying for faculty positions at liberal arts colleges. This coming spring, 2003, the graduate students at CU are planning another panel discussion on academic job applications and interviews.

PART TWO: Accomplishment of Central Goals of the National PFF Program At the center of PFF is the goal of “transform[ing] the way aspiring faculty members are prepared for their careers, moving toward an education that is informed by the kinds of responsibilities faculty members actually have in a variety of institutional types” (National PFF website). For our group, the most successful PFF activities have been the visits to other types of institutions and the cluster conferences. Full descriptions of these activities have been provided in prior reports, so suffice it to say that students learn best by directly talking with faculty about their roles and responsibilities and observing first-hand what the different institutions are like. These experiences cannot be approximated by simply reading about them or being told by others (e.g., graduate teacher seminars conducted by staff). The greatest challenge we have faced is one of resources, specifically faculty resources. Although the graduate students are enthusiastic and highly motivated to obtain broader graduate education, it is essential that faculty be heavily involved and that the graduate institution be committed to the program. In view of the heavy responsibilities already placed on faculty, there must be some tangible rewards for them (e.g., course or service release, summer money, etc.). Based on our experiences, we believe that PFF is highly beneficial to graduate students and the academic community at large. As a result of their participation in PFF, graduate students have a better understanding of faculty roles and responsibilities at different institutions. They are also better prepared to make choices about the type of institution they would like to work at and, ultimately, they are more likely to be successful in the environment of their choosing. Responses to Specific Questions

1) What recommendations for designing or operating future PFF programs can you provide?

I believe that the current PFF structure is a good one. As noted above there is no substitute for first-hand experience – the more the better. I also think it is important for PFF to focus on disciplinary issues. Students want concrete, relevant information about academic roles in their discipline. Although there are some similarities across disciplines, there are vast differences that must be attended to for students to receive an accurate picture of various faculty positions. The problem with conducting PFF at the department level is that resources get spread thin across a campus. In addition, since faculty interest in participating in PFF varies widely, continuity within a department is threatened by the comings and goings of the faculty. Based on my experience, I would recommend that the university (probably the graduate school) provide the support staff to do the legwork for PFF activities (e.g., make faculty contacts with other schools, organize local conferences and visits, organize panel discussions within departments or at least within interest areas such as natural sciences, social sciences, humanities) and involve department faculty as needed (the Teaching Excellence Program for faculty at CU operates on this model). I would also recommend that a PFF program have the complete support of department chairs and at least a few senior faculty.

Preparing Future Faculty Final Narrative Report

Cecilia Shore, Psychology, Miami University

Fall 2002 How has the cluster accomplished the goals of the original proposal?

The primary goals articulated in the original proposal were: • bring doctoral alumni who are significantly involved in teaching back to Miami to

share their experiences with current graduate students, • offer graduate students the opportunity to experience first-hand the daily activities of

teaching, research and service in settings other than Miami’s main campus in Oxford, • offer graduate students and cluster faculty members the opportunity to attend

conferences on teaching, • provide undergraduates at partner institutions the opportunity to learn from the

experiences of graduate students.

Goal 1: Bring back doctoral alumni. Each of the years of the project, we have invited an alumnus/a of our doctoral program to present a colloquium to our department and share his/her experiences as a faculty member with our current graduate students. The first year, we invited Bill Addison, and the second, Lee Fox-Cardamone. Lee was forced to cancel her visit last spring, and has re-scheduled for this spring. Throughout the project, our graduate students have had frequent contact with Miami doctoral alumni, since two of our partner faculty have Miami Ph.Ds. Tim Lawson, along with two other partner faculty, presented a workshop last spring, and Jim Bodle has served as mentor to several of our PFF scholars.

Goal 2. Give grad students experiences on partner campuses. Each year of the project, graduate students have had the option of participating in a year-long program of activities as “APA-PFF scholars”. These students (16 total) have been expected to make arrangements to spend approximately 50 hours (including travel time) on one or more partner campuses. Some students have served as adjunct faculty on partner campuses, one served as mentor to several partner undergraduates’ senior research projects, some have co-taught a course, offered guest lectures, shadowed partner faculty, met with undergraduate psychology club members, and a variety of other activities. These placements, and the mentoring that they receive from partner faculty, have been the highlight of our graduate students’ experiences with the program.

Goal 3. Support attendance at teaching conferences. Annually, APA-PFF scholars attend the Lilly Conference, a national teaching conference held at Miami University each fall. In the fall of 2001, that group (including a partner faculty member) gave a presentation about PFF at Lilly. Each year, those whose schedules permit them to do so, attend the Mid-America Conference on Teaching of Psychology. In 2001 and 2002, the group (in 2001 including a partner faculty member) made presentations in those sessions about the program, getting into graduate school, and issues facing new faculty. In addition, we have annually supported attendance of a grad student at APA’s pre-

conference workshop on teaching, and one student participated in a PFF-related panel for graduate student members of APA. Other students have attended: AAC&U, Ohio Learning Network, and University of New Hampshire’s distance-learning course on “Preparing to Teach a Course in Psychology.”

Goal 4. Connect partner undergrads with our doctoral students. Partner undergraduates have had contact with our doctoral students in their roles as adjunct faculty and in a number of informal contacts, such as talks to the psychology club about “getting into grad school.” A major opportunity for connecting partner undergraduates with our graduate students is the program’s annual Tri-State APA PFF Symposium. Over the last 2 years, 20 undergrads from our partner institutions have come to Miami to present their research posters and hear about graduate program admissions from a panel of our faculty. There were also sessions for our grad students to talk to partner faculty about faculty roles and hiring issues. Plans are in place for this year’s Symposium in January of 2003. How have we addressed central themes/goals of the national PFF program? Part One

Institutionalize PFF to be sustainable without external funds. Miami University is, we believe, unique in that we have institutionalized our departmental program “upwards” to the all-university level. With the support of our Provost, Graduate Dean, and university Committee on Effectiveness of Learning and Teaching, a Graduate Student Learning Community for Preparing Future Faculty was launched this fall, open to 8-12 doctoral students across the university. An academic professional development speaker series, open to any graduate student in the university, is one of the functions of this group.

At the departmental level, the major activities of our program can “plug into” existing internal funding structures. Students are not paid for their placements on the partner campuses, except when they serve as adjunct faculty, in which case they are paid by the partner institution. Bringing back doctoral alumni to present colloquia and meet with our students can and will be subsumed into the usual departmental budget for colloquia. The professional development speaker series has been subsumed by the newly-launched university PFF learning community. Some support for graduate students to attend teaching conferences is available through funds administered by the College of Arts and Sciences, so we will continue to be able to send students to Mid America Conference on Teaching of Psychology. Finally, we can apply for a small external grant from Psi Chi (the honorary organization for psychology) to support the research conference for partner undergraduates.

Increase involvement and participation by faculty and graduate students. There has been broad participation in the Tri-State Symposium. Doctoral faculty and students attend the reception/poster session and breakout sessions with partner faculty. Over the last two years, the PFF program has sponsored several colloquia on teaching-related topics, which are attended by a substantial segment of the department. Examples include James H. Korn, St. Louis University, who presented a workshop on mentoring, an informal talk on the use of deception in psychology research, and a colloquium on “Learning to Teach Psychology.” Barney Beins, Ithaca College, talked with faculty and students about national standards for curricula in psychology, and presented a colloquium

on “Taming the Hydra: Coherence in the Psychology Curriculum.” In addition, Jack Meacham of SUNY presented a colloquium on diversity in higher education. Finally, some junior faculty have attended the professional development speaker series. In fact, at the Provost’s request, the university PFF speaker series has been publicized to junior faculty across the university. The benefits of PFF to our department in terms of recruiting graduate students have already made themselves apparent, and key faculty are convinced that PFF experiences enhance the marketability of our students.

Embed PFF in the academic department. The department and university have granted temporary approval for two new professional development courses. One grants 1 credit each semester to students for participating as APA PFF scholars. The other is a follow-up to our pedagogy seminar, called “Continuing Supervision of Teaching”. This course is optional for students who serve as instructors-of-record for undergrad classes in the department. These courses are currently being offered, and are making their way through the permanent approval process.

Establish and maintain institutional partnerships. The two highlights of these relationships have been the “placements” and the undergrad research conference. The "placements" of our grad students on partner campuses have been extremely valuable to our students, and have been particularly beneficial to partners in situations where the student serves as an adjunct faculty member. The Tri-State APA-PFF Symposium (undergrad research conference) is also mutually beneficial, as it gives professional development experience to partner undergrads, and brings partner faculty to Miami where their experiences can more readily be shared with broader segment of the graduate student population.

In addition to these highlights, the first two years we held a “getting to know you” event in the fall for APA-PFF Scholars and partner faculty. This did not seem necessary this fall, as this year’s scholars did their placements over the past summer. Also, partner faculty have been featured in our colloquium series and in our professional development speaker series: Tim Lawson, Beth Uhler and Cathy Bishop-Clark gave a talk on “Teaching and Technology”, Kathy Milar and Robin Bartlett gave colloquia on their scholarship as well as informal presentations on hiring and promotion/tenure issues at their respective institutions.

Document benefits to students seeking academic careers, and Track careers of PFF alumni. Since students just began graduating from the program in 2001, and since we are only talking about 16 APA-PFF scholars total to date, most of whom have not graduated yet, an analysis comparing job success for PFF vs. non-PFF students is years away, in terms of the outcomes of interest, and developing sufficient data to be meaningful. Two of our alumni have received year-long replacement positions as a result of their PFF experience, and another (currently in a research post-doc) said that her PFF experience was favorably noted in the faculty interviews that she completed.

Disseminate PFF in the discipline. Each of the past three years, we have made some form of presentation at Mid-America Conference on Teaching of Psychology. One of our APA-PFF Scholars, Ayesha Shaikh, participated in a panel discussion for grad students at American Psychological Association (2001) titled, "Preparing for faculty positions: What you need to know."

I participated in a pre-conference workshop at Society for Research on Child Development (2001) on doctoral education in developmental psychology, partly to talk

about the program, and am on the schedule to do a similar presentation at a pre-conference workshop sponsored by Society for Teaching of Psychology, being held at the American Psychological Society conference spring of 2003. I was scheduled, along with members of the University of New Hampshire psychology cluster, to go do a workshop at Oklahoma State University this fall, to help them establish a new PFF program in their psychology department. Unfortunately, we had to postpone this visit until next spring, due to my suffering a back injury that precluded travel.

Anticipate and prepare for emerging and future faculty roles. Jennifer Robinson, of the faculty development center at Indiana University, gave a talk in our professional development series, co-sponsored by the Graduate School, on “Diversity Issues in Teaching.” Jack Meacham, SUNY Distinguished Teaching Professor and Department Chair, gave an informal talk on redesigning a developmental psychology course to include diverse student narratives, and a departmental colloquium on diversity in higher education. Tim Lawson at Mount Saint Joseph hosted a session on “Technology & Teaching.” He, with Beth Uhler and Cathy Bishop-Clark (MU-Middletown), helped us consider pros and cons of computer-mediated communication, wireless technology, and the internet in educational settings. Part Two

Most successful and effective PFF activity. In terms of value for our doctoral students, the most important feature of the program has been their “placements” on partner campuses, and the mentoring they receive from partner faculty. The complementary activity, in order to “give back” to our partners, we have started a local research conference (the Tri-State APA-PFF Symposium) for our partner undergraduates with “breakout sessions” for undergrads to learn about grad school from our students and faculty.

Greatest challenge. Our greatest challenge has been evaluation. We prepared a pre-test/post-test evaluation of the program for our APA PFF scholars group, and a year-end questionnaire for various constituencies, as well as a questionnaire about the undergrad research conference we organized. The quantitative data were disappointing as a source of information, due to low return rates. Busy students and professionals are unlikely to return surveys, though this seems like the most open form of requesting feedback, and one amenable to quantitative analysis. However, qualitative methods have been much more helpful and informative. Each APA PFF scholar submitted a reflective portfolio of their activities and wrote a short reflection on the program; these have been helpful in publicity efforts. Face-to-face methods, like focus groups with various constituencies have been better than questionnaires.

Recognitions/awards to PFF students/faculty for PFF work. Our PFF program is still relatively young, and although our Chair, Graduate Dean and Provost have been very pleased with the progress of the program, and supportive of its continuation, we cannot point to awards to individuals that specifically result from PFF work.

Recommendations for future PFF programs. • There are two key features about PFF that make it distinct from the usual TA

preparation programs, which should be included in establishing PFF programs. One is the partnerships with non-doctoral institutions. Another key feature is the active

inclusion of graduate students in the leadership of the program. Our graduate students have been critical in creating and sustaining our bonds with our partners.

• Consider creating a professional development course. • Give your participating students an orientation meeting and materials packet. • Keep up the communication flow via a newsletter, website, and regular emails. • Make it worthwhile to the partner institutions. Listen to them regarding opportunities

for grad student presence on their campus and ways that the grad students and doctoral program could benefit their undergraduates. Doctoral departments (and higher administration) should frequently express gratitude to partner faculty and their institutions.

• The PFF coordinator needs the support and cooperation of the grad coordinator and chair. It is strongly advisable for the PFF coordinator to have some release time at least initially.

• Write up several descriptions of various lengths of “what is PFF.” You’ll need them for news releases, newsletters, websites, conference presentations, etc.

• Exchange lists of faculty research interests and schedules for upcoming colloquia among all the partners to build bridges of common interests.

• We have found it important to be flexible in the nature of the involvement of graduate students’ involvement on partner campuses. Our students have become involved in professional roles beyond the classroom. For example, serving as a reviewer of undergraduate research submissions to a regional conference, statistical consulting for a survey of student satisfaction on a partner campus, doing career and academic advising, and shadowing partner faculty as they attend campus governance meetings.

• Wherever possible, plug into and build on existing structures. It's less threatening and more cost-effective.

• If one intends to extend the program upward from the departmental level to the university level, an optimal level of centralization-decentralization should be sought.

1

Appendix D

Institution: __________________________________________ Date: ________________

PFF Cluster Leader: __________________________________

SURVEY OF PFF PSYCHOLOGY TEAM LEADERS

Please indicate which of the following activities have been or are planned to become part of your PFF program, and whether

they were required or optional by circling or checking the correct answer below:

Presently Planned Required of Optional to In PFF For PFF Participants Participants Explain (as needed) Home Institution Experiences

1. Observe undergraduate psychology class(es) ______________________

2. Observe graduate psychology class(es) ______________________

3. Teach undergraduate psychology class(es) ______________________

4. Teach graduate psychology class(es) ______________________

5. Teaching assistantship ______________________

6. Instruction on teaching psychology ______________________

7. Instruction on teaching (general) ______________________

8. Exploration of the roles of faculty members ______________________

9. Participation in campus governance ______________________

10. Research assistantship ______________________

2

Presently Planned Required of Optional to In PFF For PFF Participants Participants Explain (as needed)

11. Advise undergraduates with mentor ______________________

12. Supervise undergraduate research with mentor ______________________

13. Shadowing day(s) with faculty ______________________

14. Mentored by more than one faculty member ______________________

15. Regular meetings with faculty mentor(s) ______________________

Partner Institution Experiences

16. Observe undergraduate psychology class(es) ______________________

17. Observe graduate psychology class(es) ______________________

18. Teach undergraduate psychology class(es) ______________________

19. Teach graduate psychology class(es) ______________________

20. Teaching assistantship ______________________

21. Instruction on teaching psychology ______________________

22. Instruction on teaching (general) ______________________

23. Exploration of the roles of faculty members ______________________

24. Participation in campus governance ______________________

25. Research assistantship ______________________

26. Advise undergraduates with mentor ______________________

27. Supervise undergraduate research with mentor ______________________

3

Presently Planned Required of Optional to In PFF For PFF Participants Participants Explain (as needed)

28. Shadowing day(s) with faculty ______________________

29. Mentored by more than one faculty member ______________________

30. Regular meetings with faculty mentor(s) ______________________

Other Experiences

31. Use of technology in teaching and learning ______________________

32. Course syllabus planning ______________________

33. Attendance at teaching conferences ______________________

34. Teaching philosophy development ______________________

35. Teaching portfolio development ______________________

40. Advisement for scholar’s job search ______________________

41. Assessment strategies and methods ______________________

42. PFF journaling ______________________

43. Special capstone projects ______________________

44. Certificate program(s) ______________________

45. PFF related course credit ______________________

46. Student assessment of their PFF experiences ______________________

4

How and to what effect are your PFF participants exposed to each of the following themes?

1. Service learning and the engaged scholar ____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Scholarship of teaching and learning _______________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. History of American higher education ______________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. Issues of tenure in faculty roles and rewards _________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5. Integration of research and teaching ________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6. Integration of professional psychologist roles with teaching _____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7. Issues of student grades and grading of assignments ___________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

8. Academic ethics issues __________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

9. Diversity of students in undergraduate programs_______________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

10. Concepts of general and liberal education____________________________________________________________________

5

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

11. Grant writing and the role of research grants in different types of institutions________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

To what extent has your PFF program been successful in:

Mostly Some Highly Unsuccessful Success Successful

1. Recruitment and graduation of minority students

2. Climate and resources of support for PFF from host university administration

3. Commitment of the department chair and multiple graduate faculty to PFF goals

4. Involvement of graduate students and partner faculty in PFF program planning

5. Use of existing campus resources to augment department resources

6. Integration of the PFF program into departmental curriculum and planning

7. Departmental recognition and support for PFF faculty leaders through assigned time

8. Learning to teach in one’s discipline as a major but not exclusive focus of PFF

9. Flexibility of scheduling to allow for different graduate student needs and interests

10. Assessment of PFF as a special case of the scholarship of teaching and learning

6

1. Recall your experiences, both positive and negative, over the past two years of PFF.

a) Of what accomplishments are you most proud?

b) What were the greatest challenges in implementing your program and how were you able to address them?

7

2. Recall the original project proposal that you submitted for the APA PFF program.

a) If you were to write a new proposal based on where you are now with your PFF program, what new goals for the future would you

set?

b) Even without the PFF grant support, what plans have you for maintaining your PFF program in pursuit of those goals?

8

3. Have you any other comments on your past two years of PFF grant experience?

9

Home Institution Experiences

0

1

2

3

4

Presently in Psychology PFFNum

ber o

f PFF

Inst

itutio

ns

Observe undergraduate psychology classes)Observe graduate psychology class(es)Teach undergraduate psychology class(es)Teach graduate psychology class(es)Teaching assistantshipInstruction on teaching psychologyInstruction on teaching (general)Exploration of the roles of faculty membersParticipation in campus governanceResearch assistantshipAdvise undergraduates with mentorSupervise undergraduate research with mentorShadowing day(s) with facultyMentored by more than one faculty memberRegular meetings with faculty mentor(s)

Survey Results

10

Partner Institution Experiences

0

1

2

3

4

Presently in Psychology PFF

Num

ber o

f PFF

Inst

itutio

ns

Observe undergraduate psychology class(es)Teach undergraduate psychology class(es)Teach graduate psychology class(es)Instruction on teaching psychologyInstruction on teaching (general)Exploration of the roles of faculty membersParticipation in campus governanceAdvise undergraduates with mentorSupervise undergraduate research with mentorShadowing day(s) with facultyMentored by more than one faculty memberRegular meetings with faculty mentor(s)

Survey Results

Appendix E

Faculty Development Bibliography:

Selected readings for faculty and graduate students preparing to become faculty in postsecondary education institutions.

American Psychological Association Education Directorate

Office of Graduate and Postdoctoral Education Paul D. Nelson, Ph.D., Director

This bibliography was developed with grant support from Atlantic Philanthropies, administered through the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) and the Council of Graduate

Schools (CGS) as part of the national initiative of “Preparing Future Faculty in the Humanities and Social Sciences” (2000-2002).

This bibliography on topics related to faculty development is based on extensive literature searches in the ERIC and PsychINFO online databases, with references from 1984 to the present. Other references were obtained from higher education and professional association websites.* The bibliography was last updated in November 2002. *Special thanks are expressed to Dr. James Korn (St. Louis University) and Dr. Victor Benassi (University of New Hampshire) for their consultation, review, and suggestions; to Ms. Kelly Myers, project intern, for her research and technical assistance; and to Ms. Joan Freund, APA Education Directorate, for her oversight of the project.

Table of Contents 1. Preparing Future Faculty (PFF)………………….………………..………………1 2. Academic Endeavors…….………………………………………………………..4 3. Civic Engagement and Service Learning…………………………………………7 4. Diversity in Higher Education………………………………………………….…9 5. Graduate and Undergraduate Student Experience………….……………………12 6. Interviewing for Faculty Positions…………………………………………….....13 7. Outcomes Assessment in Higher Education……………………………………..14 8. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning…………………………………………..15 9. Student and Faculty Mentoring Issues…………………………………………...19 10. Teaching Assistantships………………………………………………………….21 11. Teaching Philosophies, Portfolios, and Strategies………………………...……..22 12. Technology for Teaching and Learning………………………………………….24 13. Undergraduate Psychology Curriculum………………………………………….25 14. Higher Education Publications…………..……………………………………....27

Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) Adams, K. (2002). What Colleges and Universities want in New Faculty. (Occasional Paper No. 7). Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Adams M., & Marchesani, S. (1999). A multidimensional approach to faculty development: Understanding the teaching-learning process. Diversity Digest, Winter, 10-11. Anderson, H., Gaff, J., & Pruitt-Logan, A. (1997). Frequently Asked Questions About Preparing Future Faculty (Occasional Paper No. 3). Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Applegate, J.L. (2002). Engaged in graduate education: Seeing with new eyes. (Occasional Paper No. 9). Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Association of American Colleges and Universities (1997). Preparing Future Faculty: A national program. Washington, DC: Author. Benassi, V., & Fernald. P. (1993). Preparing tomorrow's psychologists for careers in academe. Teaching of Psychology, 20, (3), 149-155. Bogle, E., Blondin, J., & Miller, J. (1997). A Memo to Graduate Students Preparing to be the Faculty of the Future (Occasional Paper No. 5). Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Cage, M. (1996). Learning to teach. The Chronicle of Higher Education, A1, A19-20. Cody, J., & Hagerman, M. (1997). Transforming graduate education: A new vision of the professoriate. Journal of Chemical Education, 74, (5), 525-528. DeNeef, A. (1998). The Lessons Learned of the PFF Concerning the Job Market (Occasional Paper). Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. DeNeef, A.L (2002). The Preparing Future Faculty Program: What Difference Does it Make? (Occasional Paper No. 8). Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Devine, K. (2001). Developing intellectual entrepreneurship: For grad students, communication is a basis for success. The Scientist, 15(5), 1.

1

Fernald, P. (1995). Preparing psychology graduate students for the professoriate. American Psychologist, 50, (6), 421-427. Frost, M., & Reynolds, B. (2000). University of Michigan prepares future faculty. Chemistry: The Magazine for ACS Student Affiliates, November/December. Gaff, J., & Pruitt-Logan, A. (1998). What happens when we really prepare graduate students to become college professors. In Anderson (Ed.) The Experience of Being in Graduate School: An Exploration. New Directions for Higher Education No. 101. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gaff, J., Pruitt-Logan, A., & Weibl, R. (2000). Building the Faculty we Need: Colleges and Universities Working Together. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools.

Harris, P. (2001). Doctoral students get taste of profession. The Council Chronicle of the National Association of Teachers of English, February, 2. LaPidus, J. (1993). Déjà vu All Over Again. Liberal Education, 79 (2), 10-15. Lee, R. (2001). Justifying preparing future faculty programs. Liberal Education, 87 (2), 46-51. Leslie, D. (Ed.) (1998). The Growing Use of Part-Time Faculty: Understanding Causes and Effects. New Directions for Higher Education No. 104. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mervis, J. (2001). Student Survey Highlights Mismatch of Training, Goals. Science, 291, (5503), 408-409. Meyers, S., Reid, P., & Quina, K. (1995). Ready or not, here we come: Preparing psychology graduate students for academic careers. Teaching of Psychology, 25, (2), 124-126. Murray, B. (2000). Professor for a day. Monitor on Psychology, 31 (3). Nyquist, Abbott, & Spraque (1991). Preparing the Professoriate of Tomorrow to Teach. Kendall/Hunt. Phipps, K. (2000). Book review of building the faculty we need: Colleges and universities working together. Planning Higher Education: The Journal of the Society for College and University Planning, 29, (2), 45-46. Pruitt, A. (1998). Building Bridges: The Preparing Future Faculty Program and Teaching Assistant Training (Occasional Paper). Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

2

Pruitt-Logan, A., Gaff, J., & Weibl, R. (1998). The Impact: Assessing Experiences of Participants in the Preparing Future Faculty Program, 1994-1996 (Occasional Paper No. 6). Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Puzon, B (Ed.) (2002). Liberal Education, 88 (3), Theme Issue: Preparing

Faculty for the Future.

Rayson, D., Farmer, E., & Frame, R. (1999). Preparing future faculty: Teaching the academic life. Perspectives: The American Historical Association Newsletter. 37 (1), 1-13. Seidel, L., & Montgomery, B. (1996). Formal Academic Programs in College Teaching: A New Model For Preparing Future Faculty. Presented at the National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning and Assessment. State College, PA. Shine, R. (1995). Into the Real World: The Adventures of a Graduate Student and PFF. Liberal Education, 81 (4), 36-41. Stern, G. (2000). Sampling the realities of campus teaching: 200 institutions join faculty project. The Hispanic Outlook on Higher Education, 10 (24), 26-28. Tice, S. (1997). The Relationships Between Faculty Preparation Programs and Teaching Assistant Development Programs (Occasional Paper No. 4). Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Wildavsky, B. (2001). Professors in training: Ph.D. students get a close-up view of faculty life. America's Best Graduate Schools. U.S. News and World Report.

Wildavsky, B. (2002). Professors in training. America's Best Graduate Schools.

U.S. News and World Report. Website Links University of New Hampshire PFF http://www.gradschool.unh.edu/PFF/pffprogram.html The Faculty we Seek Associated New American Colleges Commentary http://anac.vir.org/bulletin/bul0104-4.html Preparing for the Next Wave of Faculty New England Resource Center for Higher Education Brief May 2001 http://www.nerche.org/briefs/brief7/brief7.html

3

Training in Transition: Preparing Future Faculty. By Mona Mort. Science Next Wave, February 9, 2001. http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2001/02/07/3 Signs of Intelligible Life. By Lily Whiteman. Science Next Wave. November 24, 2000. http://www.utexas.edu/ogs/rc/nwave.html Wanted: Articulate Scientists. By Lily Whiteman. Science Next Wave. November 10, 2000. http://www.utexas.edu/ogs/rc/nwave.html New Program Helps with Professional Development. By Mark Sincell. Science Next Wave. January 7, 2000. http://www.utexas.edu/ogs/rc/wave.html

Academic Endeavors

Aisenberg, N., & Harrington, M. (1988). Women of Academe: Outsiders in the Sacred Grove. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.

Altbach, P. (1995). Problems and possibilities: The US academic profession. Studies in Higher Education, 20, (1), 27-44. Austin, A., & Rice, R. (1998). Making tenure viable: Listening to early career faculty. American Behavioral Scientist, 41, (5), 736-754.

Bader, J. (1995). The effects of "uncapping": A summary of research. Academe, 81, (1), 36-37.

Boice, R. (1992). The New Faculty Member. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Boice, R. (2000). Advice For New Faculty Members. Needham Heights, MA:

Allyn & Bacon. Bringle, R., & Hatcher, J. (1996). Implementing service learning in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 67, (2), 221-239.

Carlson, E., & Kimball, B. (1994). Two views of the academic Life. Liberal

Education, 80 (4), 4-15.

Chronister, J. (1991). Institutional culture and the new professoriate. Academe, 77, (5), 23-25.

Collins, L. Chrisler, J., & Quina, K. (Eds.). Career Strategies for Women in

Academe: Arming Athena. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

4

Ferren, A. (1998). Senior faculty considering retirement: A developmental and policy issue. New Pathways: Faculty Career and Employment for the 21st Century. Working Paper Series Inquiry #1. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Fink, L. (1984). The First Year of College Teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning no. 17. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Finkelstein, M. J., Seal, R., & Schuster, J.H. (1999). New entrants to the full-time faculty of higher education institutions. Education Statistics Quarterly, 1 (4), 78-80.

Gaff, J. (1994). Faculty development: The new frontier. Liberal Education, 80, (4), 16-21.

Gaff, J. (1997). The changing roles of faculty and administrators. Liberal

Education, 83, (3), 12-17. Gappa, J. (1999). Academic careers in the Twenty First Century: New Options for Faculty. Mid Western Educational Researcher, 12, (1), 9-14.

Gill, J. et al. (1992). Bringing into Focus the Factors Affecting Faculty Supply and Demand: A Primer for Higher Education and State Policymakers. Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. Haworth, K. (1999). More community colleges push to hire Ph.D.s as professors. Chronicle of Higher Education, 45, (18), A12-A13. Heiberger, M., & Vick, J. (1992). The Academic Job Search Handbook. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Juarez, C. (1991). Recruiting minority students for academic careers: The role of graduate student and faculty mentors. Political Science and Politics, 24, (3), 539-540.

Kreisman, L. (1996). A Greying Faculty: Challenge or Stumbling Block to the Twenty-First Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. LaPidus, J. (1995). Doctoral education and student career needs. In student services for graduate students. In Pruitt-Logan, A., and Issac, P. (Eds.). New Directions for Student Services No. 72. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 63-80.

Lawrence, J.H. (1998). A framework for assessing trends in academic careers. New Directions for Higher Education, 26 (4), 19-28. Magner, D. (1994). Job market blues. Chronicle of Higher Education, 40 (34), A17.

5

Manzo, K. (1994). Senior power: Longer twilight shortens prospects for junior scholars. Black Issues in Higher Education, 11, (8), 12-15.

Menges, R. et al. (1999). Faculty in New Jobs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Moses, I. (1993). The development of knowledge and skills of academic staff. Higher Education Management, 5, (2), 173-190. Murray, J.P.(2000). New Faculty’s Perceptions of the Academic Work Life. ASHE Annual Meeting Paper. Sacramento, CA: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Nyquist, J. Manning, L., Wulff, D., Austin, A., Sprague, J., Fraser, P., Calcagno, C., & Woodford, B. (1999). On the road to becoming a professor: The graduate student experience. Change, 31, (3), 18-27. Rheingold, H. (1994). The psychologist's guide to an academic career. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Rice, R., Sorcinelli, M., & Austin, A. (2000). Heeding New Voices: Academic Careers for a New Generation. Working Paper Inquiry #7. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Sanderson, A., Phua, V., & Herda, D. (2000). The American Faculty Poll. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.

Schuster, J. (1995). Whither the faculty? The changing academic labor market. Educational Record, 76, (4), 28-33. Sheenan, E., McDevitt, T., & Ross, H. (1998). Looking for a job as a psychology professor? Factors affecting applicant success. Teaching of Psychology, 25, (1), 8-11. Sorcinelli, M., & Austin, A. (Eds.) (1992). Developing New and Junior Faculty. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 48. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sorcinelli, M. (2000). Principles of Good Practice: Supporting Early-Career Faculty. Guidance for Deans, Department Chairs, and Other Academic Leaders. Washington, DC, American Association for Higher Education. Sorcinelli, M. (1994). Effective approaches to new faculty development. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72, (5), 474-479. Sorcinelli, M. (1992). New and Junior Faculty Stress: Research and Responses. New Directions for Teaching and Learning no. 50, 27-37.

6

Stalker, J. & Prentice, S. (Eds.) (1998). The Illusion of Inclusion: Women in Post-Secondary Education. Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood Publishing. Sternberg, R. (Ed.) (1997). Career paths in psychology: Where your degree can take you. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Taylor, P. (1999). Making Sense of Academic Life: Academics, Universities and

Change. Florence, KY: Taylor and Francis Group. Trower, C. (2000). Your faculty, reluctantly. Trusteeship, 8 (4), 8-12.

Trower, C. (1997). New pathways: Faculty Careers and Employment in the 21st century. Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum, 8, (1), 61-74. Williams, W. (2001). Women in academe, and the men who derail them. The Chronicle on Higher Education, July 20, 2001, B20.

Civic Engagement and Service Learning

Altman, I. (1996). Higher education and psychology in the millennium. American Psychologist, 51, (4), 371-378. Antonio, A.L., Astin, H.S., and Cress, C.M. (In press). Community service in higher education: A look at the nation’s faculty. Review of Higher Education Astin, A. W. (1996). The role of service in higher education. About Campus, 1 (1), 14-19. Astin, A. W., & Sax, L. J. (1998). How undergraduates are affected by service participation. Journal of College Student Development, 39 (3), 251-263. Astin, A. W., Sax, L. J., & Avalos, J. (1999). Long-term effects of volunteerism during the undergraduate years. The Review of Higher Education, 22 (2), 187-202. Astin, H. S., Antonio, A. L., Cress, C. M., & Astin, A. W. (1996). Faculty involvement in community service. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA. Report for RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. Bringle, R., & Duffy, D. (Eds.), (1998). With Service in Mind: Concepts and Models for Service Learning in Psychology. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Cleary, C., & Benson, D. (1998). The service integration project: Institutionalizing university service learning. Journal of Experiential Education, 21, (3), 124-129.

7

Ehrlich, T. (2000). Civic Responsibility and Higher Education. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Eyler, J., & Giles, D. (1999). Where's the Learning in Service Learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Eyler, J.S., Giles, D.E., Stenson, C.M., & Gray, C.J. (2001). At a glance: What we know about the effects of service-learning on college students, faculty, institutions and communities, 1993-2000: Third Edition. Giles, D. (1998). A service learning research agenda for the next five years. In Rhoads, R., & Howards, J. (Eds.), Academic Service Learning: A Pedagogy of Action and Reflection. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Jacoby, B. et al. (1996). Service Learning in Higher Education: Concepts and Practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kember, D. (2000). Action Learning and Action Research. London, England: Kogan Page. Kenny, M. E., Simon, L. K., Kiley-Brabeck, K., & Lerner, R. M. (Eds.) (2002). Learning to Serve: Promoting Civil Society Through Service Learning. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Murray, B. (2002). The service squeeze. Monitor on Psychology, 33 (9), 70-72. Neururer, J., & Rhoads, R. (1998). Community service: Panacea, paradox, or potentiation. Journal of College Student Development, 39, (4), 321-330. Prentice, M., & Garcia, R. (2000). Service learning: The next generation in education. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 24, (1), 19-26. Rice, D., & Stacey, K. (1997). Small group dynamics as a catalyst for change: A faculty development model for academic service learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4, 64-71. Sagaria, M., & Burrows, J. (1998). Internal meanings and markers of college and university community service attentiveness in urban areas. Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum, 9 (3), 29-42. Sax, L. J., & Astin, A. W. (1997). The benefits of service: Evidence from undergraduates. Educational Record, 78, 25-32.

Walshok, M. (1995). Knowledge Without Boundaries: What America's Research Universities can do for the Economy, the Workplace, and the Community. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

8

Ward, K. (1996). Service Learning and Student Volunteerism: Reflections on Institutional Commitment. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY. Zlotkowski, E. (1996). Linking service learning and the academy: A new voice at the table? Change, 28, (1), 20-27. Zlotkowski, E. (1997). Service learning and the process of academic renewal. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 21, (1), 80-87.

Zlotkowski, E. (2000, Fall). Service-learning in the disciplines. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 61-67. Website Links American Psychological Association SLCE This site is intended to introduce faculty, teachers, students, researchers, clinicians, and community partners to the connections between psychological work, the pedagogy of service-learning, and issues of civic engagement. http://www.apa.org/ed/slce/home.html National Campus Compact Campus Compact is a national coalition of more than 800 college and university presidents committed to the civic purposes of higher education. www.compact.org

National Service Learning Clearinghouse The Learn and Serve America National Service-Learning Clearinghouse (NSLC) supports the service-learning community in higher education, kindergarten through grade twelve, community-based initiatives and tribal programs, as well as all others interested in strengthening schools and communities using service-learning techniques and methodologies. http://www.servicelearning.org/who_we_are/about/index.html Service Learning and Civic Engagement National Research Directory The research directory is an aggregation of the search pages of primary online resources on service-learning and civic engagement research in K-12 education, teacher education, and higher education. gse.berkeley.edu/research/slrdc/resdirectory Service Learning Research E-Newsletter Provides details of new and upcoming events, activities, conferences, publications, funding opportunities, studies, awards, and other relevant information on service learning research. Parties interested in subscribing or contributing an announcement to the newsletter should send an email to Jane Po, janepo@uclink.berkeley.edu

9

Diversity in Higher Education

Bernal, M. (1994). Integration of ethnic minorities into academic psychology: How it has been and what it could be. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, and E. Birman (Eds.), Human Diversity: Perspectives on People in Context (pp. 404-423). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boice, R. (1993). New faculty involvement of women and minorities. Research

in Higher Education, 34, 291-341. Borman, K., Kromrey, J.D., Thomas, D., & Dickinson, W. (1998). University

Women and Minorities: A Case Study of Organizational Supports and Impediments for Faculty. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (San Diego, CA, April 13-17, 1998). Calhoun, T., Hougland, J., Ihinger-Tallman, M., Lee, B., & Ortega, S. (Eds.) (1999). Recruiting and Graduating Students of Color. Prepared for the Committee on Graduate Education. Carter, R. (2000). Reimagining race in education: A new paradigm from psychology. Teachers College Record, 102, (5), 864-897. Choi-Pearson, C. (1998). The multicultural climate: Reactions from counseling psychology training directors, faculty, and racial/ethnic minority graduate students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, (5-A), 1434. DeVaney, S. & Hughley, A. (2000). Career development of ethnic minority students. In Luzzo, D. A. (Ed.) Career counseling of college students: An empirical guide to strategies that work. (pp. 233-252). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Gaffney, N. (1995). Enhancing the Minority Presence in Graduate Education VI: Catalyst for Success: The Summer Research Opportunity Program. Council of Graduate Schools, Washington, DC. Gainen, J., & Boice, R. (Eds.), (1993). Building a Diverse Faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Garcia, M. (Ed.) (2000). Succeeding in an Academic Career: A Guide for Faculty of Color. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Girgus, J. (1999). Refereeing on different playing fields: Diversity in higher education. American Psychologist, 54, 356-357.

10

Hammond, W. R., & Yung, B. (1993). Minority student recruitment and retention practices among schools of professional psychology: A national survey and analysis. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 24, 3-12.

Looney, J. (1994). Prescription for persistence. Black Issues in Higher Education, 11, 18-24.

Lynn, M. (1998). Teaching through diversity. College Teaching, 46, 123-127.

Gainen, J., & Boice, R. (Eds.) (1993). Theme Issue: Building a Diverse Faculty. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 53.

Pistole, M.C. (1994). Mentoring women's academic careers: Using a family model to enhance women's success. Initiatives, 56 (2), 29-36.

Stricker, G., Davis-Russell, E., Bourg, E., Duran, E., Hammond, R., McHollan, S., Polite, K., & Vaughn, B. E. (Eds.). (1990). Toward ethnic diversification in psychology education and training. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Taylor, E. (2000) And the winner is: Us. How we may all benefit from diversity in academe. Change, 32 (4), 42-45. The Quality Education for Minorities Project's Action Council on Minority Education. (1990). Education That Works: An Action Plan for the Education of Minorities. Cambridge, MA: The Quality Education for Minorities Project. Tovar, M. (1997). Enhancing Diversity in Graduate Education. Graduate Plan for Enhancing Diversity: Oklahoma State University. Prepared for the Council of Graduate Schools Peterson's Award Competition, Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater.

Turner, C., Garcia, M., Nora, A., & Rendon, L. (Eds.) (1996). Racial & Ethnic

Diversity in Higher Education. ASHE Reader Series. Association for the Study of Higher Education. Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.

Wagner, U. (1992). Environments of Support. American Council on Education, Washington, DC. Website Links Directory of Selected Scholarship, Fellowship, and Other Financial Aid Opportunities for Women and Ethnic Minorities in Psychology and Related Fields http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/directory.html Graduate Faculty in Psychology Interested in Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/lgbsurvey/

11

How to Recruit and Hire Ethnic Minority Faculty http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/diversity/book2/ Model Strategies for Ethnic Minority Recruitment and Retention in Higher Education http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/modelstrategies.pdf Psychology Education and Careers: Guidebook for College Students of Color Applying to Graduate and Professional Programs http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/careers/book3/page1.html Psychology Education and Careers: Resources for Psychology Training Programs Recruiting Students of Color http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/careers/book4/ Surviving and Thriving in Academia: A Guide for Women and Ethnic Minorities http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/surviving/ Valuing Diversity in Faculty: A Guide http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/diversity/book1/ Visions and Transformation: The Final Report of the APA Commission on Ethnic Minority Recruitment and Retention in Psychology http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/visions/ Women in Academe: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/academe/toc.html

Graduate and Undergraduate Student Experience Anderson, M. & Swazey, J. (1998). Reflections on the Graduate Student Experience: An Overview. New Directions for Higher Education no. 26, (1), 3-13. Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A development theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308. Astin, A. W. (1993a). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W. (1993b). What matters in college. Liberal Education, 79, (4), 53-66. Boyer, E. (1987). College: The Undergraduate Experience in America. New York: Harper Collins.

12

Boyle, P., & Boice, B. (1995). The Structure of Good Beginnings: The Early Experiences of Graduate Students. Orlando, FL: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education. Fischer, B., & Zigmond, M. (1998). Survival Skills for Graduate School and Beyond. New Directions for Higher Education no. 26, (1), 29-40.

Golde, C. M., & Dore, T. M. (2001). At cross purposes: What the experiences of doctoral students reveal about doctoral education. A report prepared for The Pew Charitable Trusts, Philadelphia, PA (January). Lepof, A., & Doraisingh, D. (1998). Undergraduates talk about their college experience. Liberal Education, 84, (3), 26-29. Pascarella, E. (1991). The impact of college on students: The nature of the evidence. Review of Higher Education, 14, (4), 453-466. Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding Learning and Teaching: The Experience in Higher Education. London, England: Society for Research into Higher Education. Walfish, S., & Hess, A. (Eds.) (2001). Succeeding in Graduate School: The Career Guide for Psychology Students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Website Links The UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies (GSE&IS) http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/ The UCLA Higher Education Research Institute http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/heri.html

Interviewing for Faculty Positions

Clement, M.C. (2000). Building the Best Faculty: Strategies for Hiring and Supporting New Teachers. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Golde, C. (2001). Be honorable and strategic. Science’s Next Wave, August 24. McDowell, E.E. (1997). An Investigation of the Resume and Employment Interview in the Hiring Process of Faculty Members. St. Louis, MO: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Central States Communication Association.

Murray, J.P. (1999). To hire competent community college faculty. Community College Review, 27(1), 41-56.

13

Murray, J.P. (1998). Hiring the faculty for the next millennium. Journal of Staff, Program and Organizational Development, 16(1), 5-14.

Watts, G.E. (1993a). Effective Strategies in Selecting Quality Faculty. Phoenix,

AZ: Paper presented at the International Conference for Community College Chairs, Deans, and Other Instructional Leaders.

Watts, G.E. (1993b). The right person for the job: How to hire good faculty.

Community College Journal, 63(6), 29-33.

Outcomes Assessment in Higher Education

Astin, A. (1993). Assessment for Excellence: The Philosophy and Practice of Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.

Biggs, J. (1996). Assessing learning quality: Reconciling institutional, staff and

educational demands. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 21, (1), 5-15.

Bogue, E., & Saunders, R. (1992). The Evidence for Quality. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Boyle, P., & Bowden, J. (1997). Educational quality assurance in universities: An

enhanced model. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 22, (2), 111-121. Cambridge, B. (1996). The paradigm shifts: Examining quality of teaching

through assessment of student learning. Innovative Higher Education, 20, (4), 287-297. Dixon, T. (1994). A Discussion of Non-Traditional Outcomes Assessment

Models. Stillwater, OK: Paper presented at the Annual National Conference of Academic Deans.

Evenbeck, S., & Kahn, S. (2001). Enhancing learning assessment and

accountability through communities of practice. Change, May/June, 25-26, 43-49. Ewell, P. (1999). Assessment of higher education quality: Promise and politics.

In Messick, S. (Ed.) et al. (1999). Assessment in Higher Education: Issues of Access, Quality, Student Development, and Public Policy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gardiner, L., Anderson, C., & Cambridge, B. (Eds.) (1997). Learning Through

Assessment: A Resource Guide for Higher Education. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

Gose, B. (1999). A new survey of "good practices" could be an alternative to rankings. The Chronicle of Higher Education. A65-A67.

14

Gumport, P. (2001). A report to stakeholders on the condition and effectiveness of postsecondary education. Change, May/June, 27-42.

Halpern, D., Appleby, D., Beers, S., Cowan, C., Furedy, J., Halonen, J., Horton,

C., Peden, B., & Pittenger, D. (1993). Targeting outcomes: Covering your assessment concerns and needs. In McGovern, T. et al. (Ed.) (1993). Handbook for enhancing undergraduate education in psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Hart, P. et al. (1994). Dilemmas of participatory enquiry: A case study of

method-in-action. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 19, (3), 201-214. Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment and Evaluation in

Higher Education, 18, (1), 9-34. Kells, H. (1992). Purposes and means in higher education evaluation. Higher

Education Management, 4, (1), 91-102. Kuh, G. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the

national survey of student engagement. Change, May/June, 10-17. Pascarella, E. (2001). Identifying excellence in undergraduate education: Are we

even close? Change, May/June, 19-23. Woodhouse, D. (1995). Efficient quality systems. Assessment and Evaluation in

Higher Education, 20, (1), 15-24.

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

Altman, H., & Cahin, W. (1992). Writing a Syllabus (IDEA Paper No. 27). Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development.

Andrews, J. (1996). The teaching and learning transaction in higher education: A study of excellent professors and their students. Teaching in Higher Education, 1, (1), 81-103.

Angelo, T., & Cross, K. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook

for college teachers (Second Edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ashcroft, K., & Foreman-Peck, L. (1994). Managing Teaching and Learning in Further and Higher Education. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.

Bender, E. & Gray, D. (1999). The scholarship of teaching. Research and Creative Activity, 22(1), 1.

15

Benjamin, L., & Lowman, K. (1981). Activities handbook for the teaching of psychology: Volume 1. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Benjamin, L., Nodine, B., Ernst, R., & Broeker, C. (1999). Activities handbook for the teaching of psychology: Volume 4. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Blackburn, R., Beiber, J., Lawrence, J., & Trautvetter, L. (1991). Faculty at work: Focus on research, scholarship, and service. Research in Higher Education, 32, 385-413.

Boice, R. (1996). First-order principles for college teachers. Bolton, MA:

Anker. Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie

Foundation. Brookfield, S., & Preskill, S. (1999). Discussion as a Way of Teaching. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cashin, W., & McKnight, P. (1986). Improving Discussions. (IDEA Paper No

15). Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development.

Cox, B. (1994). Practical Pointers for University Teachers. Teaching and

Learning in Higher Education. London, England: Kogan Page Limited. Cross, P., & Steadman, M. (1996). Classroom Research: Implementing the

Scholarship of Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Davis, B. (1993). Tools for Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Diamond, R., & Adam, B. (Eds.) (1995). The Disciplines Speak : Rewarding the

Scholarly, Professional, and Creative Work of Faculty. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education.

Diamond, R., & Adam, B. (Eds.) (2000). The Disciplines Speak II: More

Statements on Rewarding the Scholarly, Professional, and Creative Work of Faculty. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education. Duffy, D., & Jones, J. (1995). Teaching Within the Rhythms of the Semester. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Enns, C. (1993). Integrating separate and connected knowing: The experiential learning model. Teaching of Psychology, 20, 7-13.

16

Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., & Marshall, S. (1999). A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Enhancing Academic Practice. London, England: Kogan Page Limited. Gaff, J. (1999). General Education: The Challenging Agenda. The Academy in Transition. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Glassik, C., Huber, M., & Maeroff, G. (1997). Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gray, P. (1993). Engaging students' intellects: The immersion approach to critical thinking in psychology instruction. Teaching of Psychology, 20, 68-74. Halpern, D. (2003). Thought and Knowledge, Fouth Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Halpern, D. & Riggio, H. (2003). Thinking Critically About Critical Thinking, Fourth Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Halpern, D., Smothergill, D., Allen, M., Baker, S., Baum, C., Best, D., Ferrari, J., Geisinger, K., Gilden, E., Hester, M., Keith-Speigel, P., Kierniesky, N., McGovern, T., McKeachie, W., Prokasy, W., Szuchman, L., Vasta, R. Weaver, K. (1998). Scholarship in psychology: A paradigm for the twenty-first century. American Psychologist, 53, (12), 1292-1297. Halpern, D., & Reich, J. (1999). Scholarship in psychology: Conversations about change and constancy. American Psychologist, 54, 347-349. Hamblin, J. (2000). A Walk Through Graduate Education: Selected papers and speeches of Jules B. LaPidus. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. Huber, M. T., & Morreale, S.P. (Eds.) (2002). Disciplinary Styles in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Exploring Common Ground. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Hutchings, P. (Ed.), (1998). The Course Portfolio: How Faculty Can Examine Their Teaching to Advance Practice and Improve Student Learning. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Hutchings, P. (Ed.) (2000). Opening Lines: Approaches to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Menlo Park, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Hutchings, P. & Shulman, L. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments. Change, 31(5), 10-15.

17

Katz, J., & Henry, M. (1993). Turning Professors Into Teachers. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Korn, J. (1999). Recognizing teaching as teaching. American Psychologist, 54, 362-363. Kramer, T., & Korn, J. (1999). Class discussions: Promoting Participation and preventing problems. In Perlman, B., McCann, L., & McFadden, S. (Eds.). Lessons Learned: Practical Advice for the Teaching of Psychology. Washington, DC: The American Psychological Society. Makosky, V, Sileo, C., & Whittemore, L. (1990). Activities handbook for the teaching of psychology: Volume 3. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Makosky, V., Whittemore, L., & Rogers, A. (1988). Activities handbook for the teaching of psychology: Volume 2. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Meyers, S. (1997). Increasing student participation and productivity in small-group activities for psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 24, 105-115. Myers, D., & Walker, J. (1999). Reflections on scholarship from the liberal arts academy. American Psychologist, 54, 358-361. Nummedal, S.G., Benson, J.B., & Chew, S. L. (2002). Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: A view from psychology. In Huber, M. T., & Sherwyn, P.H. (Eds.) Disciplinary Styles in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Exploring Common Ground. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Palmer, P.J. (1997). The heart of a teacher: Identity and integrity in college teaching. Change, Nov./Dec., 15-21. Perlman, B., McCann, L., & McFadden, S. (Eds.), (1999). Lessons Learned: Practical Advice for the Teaching of Psychology. Washington, DC: The American Psychological Society. Peterson, R., & Trierweiler, S. (1999). Scholarship in psychology: The advantages of an expanded view. American Psychologist, 54, 350-355. Seldin, P. (1997). The Teaching Portfolio. A practical guide to improved performance and promotion/tenure decisions. (Second Edition). Bolton, MA: Anker. Shulman, L. (1993). Teaching as community property. Change, Nov./Dec., 6.

18

The Society for the Teaching of Psychology's Task Force on Defining Scholarship in Psychology (1998). Scholarship in psychology. A paradigm for the twenty-first century. American Psychologist, 53, 1292-1297. Website Links The AAHE CASTL Campus Program WebCenter This site offers you connections to other people doing the scholarship of teaching and learning and to helpful resources. http://aahe.ital.utexas.edu The scholarship of teaching: What's the problem? by Randy Bass. Published in the online journal Inventio at George Mason University http://www.doiiit.gmu.edu/Archives/feb98/randybass.htm Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning by Mary Taylor Huber. Presented at the 7th International Improving Student Learning Symposium, September, 1999. http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/eLibrary/disciplinarystyles.htm An annotated bibliography of the scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education compiled by Pat Hutchings and Chris Bjork. http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/CASTL/highered/bibliography.htm From Minsk to Pinsk: Why a scholarship of teaching and learning by Lee S. Shulman. Published in the first issue of The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL), and based on a presentation to the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) at its 2000 annual meeting in Anaheim, CA. http://www.iusb.edu/%7Ejosotl/contents.v2.htm Visions of the Possible: Models for Campus Support of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning by Lee S. Shulman. Based on comments made at meetings during November and December 1999, bringing together research university faculty and administrators interested in the advancement of teaching and the scholarship of teaching. http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/eLibrary/visions.htm

Student and Faculty Mentoring Issues Berger, B. (1992). Mentoring graduate students. American Journal of

Pharmaceutical Education, 56, 79-82.

Bigelow, J. (1999). Mentor-protégé relationship formation in graduate psychology programs: A comprehensive literature review and proposal. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A (Humanities and Sciences), 59 (9-A), 3344.

19

Blankmeyer, M., & Weber, M. J. (1996). Mentoring: The socialization of graduate students for the 21st century. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 88 (3), 32-36.

Boice, R. (1990). Mentoring new faculty: A program for implementation.

Journal of Staff, Program, & Organizational Development, 8, 143-160. Boice, R. (1992). Lessons learned about mentoring. New Directions for

Teaching and Learning, 50, 51-61. Boyle, P., & Boice, B. (1998). Systematic mentoring for new faculty teachers and

graduate teaching assistants. Innovative Higher Education, 22, 157-179. Campbell, D. & Campbell, T. (2000). The mentoring relationship: Differing perceptions of benefits. College Student Journal, 34, (4), 516-523.

Gaffney, N. (1995). A Conversation About Mentoring: Trends and Models. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. Kitchener, K. (1992). Psychologist as teacher and mentor: Affirming ethical values throughout the curriculum. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 23, (3), 190-195. Luna, G. & Cullen, D. (1998). Do Graduate students need mentoring? College Student Journal, 23 (3), 322-330. Morgan, T. (1993). A Mentoring Model To Develop Future Psychology Academicians: Increasing Teaching Skills and Productivity. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Ontario, Canada. Pawlak, S. (1999). The academic mentoring process: A survey of important aspects. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B (Sciences & Engineering), 59, (9-B), 5145. Rose, G. (2000). What do doctoral students want in a mentor? Development of the ideal mentor scale. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B (Sciences & Engineering), 60, (12-B), 6418. Zorich, L. (2000). Mentoring across stages of psychology graduate student development: A theoretical model. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B (Sciences & Engineering), 61, (3-B), 1662.

20

Teaching Assistantships

Bedient, D. (1998). Teaching assistant concerns and questions: What 252 TAs wanted to know and weren't afraid to ask. The Journal of Graduate Assistant Development, 5, (3), 127-132.

Benassi, V., Jordan, & Harrison (1994). Using teaching modules to train and supervise graduate TAs. In K.G. Lewis (Ed.), The TA Experience: Preparing for Multiple Roles, 183-188. New Forums Press.

Buskist, W. (2000). Common mistakes made by graduate teaching assistants and

suggestions for correcting them. Teaching of Psychology, 27, (4), 280-282. Lambert, L. & Tice, S. (Eds.), (1993). Preparing Graduate Students to Teach.

Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Lowman, J., & Mathie, V. (1993). What should graduate teaching assistants

know about teaching? Teaching of Psychology, 20, (2), 84-88. Marincovich, M., Prostko, J., & Stout, F. (Eds.), (1998). The Professional Development of Graduate Teaching Assistants. Bolton, MA: Anker.

Meyers, S. (1996). Consequences of interpersonal relationships between teaching assistants and supervising faculty. Psychological Reports, 78, (3, Pt 1), 755-762.

Meyers, S., & Prieto, L. (2000a). Training in the teaching of psychology: What

is done and examining the differences. Teaching of Psychology, 27, (4), 258-261. Meyers, S., & Prieto, L. (2000b). Using active learning to improve the training

of psychology teaching assistants. Teaching of Psychology, 27, (4), 283-284. Mueller, A., Perlman, B., McCann, L., & McFadden, S. (1997). A faculty

perspective on teaching assistant training. Teaching of Psychology, 24, (3), 167-171. Murray, J.P., & Murray, J.I. (1992). How do I lecture thee? College Teaching, 40 (3), 109-113.

Prieto, L., & Meyers, S. (1999). Effects of training and supervision on the self-efficacy of psychology graduate teaching assistants. Teaching of Psychology, 26, (4), 264-266.

Prieto, L., & Meyers, S. (2001). The Teaching Assistant Training Handbook:

How to Prepare TAs for Their Responsibilities. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.

21

Ryan, M., & Martens, G. (1989). Planning a College Course: A Guidebook for the Graduate Teaching Assistant. Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.

Shannon, D., Twale, D., & Moore, M. (1998). TA teaching effectiveness. The

Journal of Higher Education, 69, (4), 441-465. Website Links The Center for Teaching Excellence TA Cyber-Handbook http://ase.tufts.edu/cae/main/ta.htm

Teaching Philosophies, Portfolios, and Strategies Barkley, E. (2001). From Bach to Tupac: Using an electronic course portfolio to analyze a curricular transformation. AAHE Bulletin, 53 (10), 3-6.

Brookfield, S. (1990). The skillful teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Edgerton, R. (1991). The Teaching Portfolio: Capturing the Scholarship in

Teaching. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Edgerton, R., Hutchings, P., & Quinlan, K. (1995). The Teaching Portfolio. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

Grasha, A. (1996). Teaching With Style. Pittsburgh, PA: Alliance Publishers. Johnson, G. (1995). First Steps to Excellence in College Teaching. Madison, WI: Magna Publications, Inc.

Liberman, D., & Wehlburg, C. (Eds.) (2001). To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty, Instructional, and Organizational Development, Volume 19. Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education. McKeachie, W. (1999). Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers (Tenth Edition). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Murray, J.P. (1997). Successful Faculty Development and Evaluation: The Complete Teaching Portfolio. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education. Murray, J.P. (1995). The teaching portfolio: A tool for department chairpersons to create a climate of teaching excellence. Innovative Higher Education, 19 (3), 163-175.

22

Murray, J.P. (1994). Why teaching portfolios? Community College Review, 22 (1), 33-43. Nilson, L. (1998). Teaching at its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors. Jaffrey, NH: Anker Publishing Company.

Oermann, M. (1999). Developing a teaching portfolio. Journal of Professional Nursing, 15, (4), 224-228.

O'Neil, C., & Wright, A. (1993). Recording Teaching Accomplishment. (4th ed). Halifax, Nova Scotia, CA: Dalhousie University.

Painter, B. (2001). Using teaching portfolios. Educational Leadership, 58 (5),

31-34.

Reinsmith, W. (1994). Archetypal forms in teaching. College Teaching, 42, 131-136.

Richlin, L. (1995). A different view on developing teaching portfolios: Ensuring safety while honoring practice. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 6, (1), 161-178.

Scheffler, I. (1960). The Language of Education. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.

Schmier, L. (1995). Random Thoughts: The Humanity of Teaching. Madison, WI: Magda Publications.

Scott, S.M., et. al. (1994). Philosophy-in-action in university teaching. Canadian

Journal of Higher Education, 24 (3), 1-25. Seldin, P. (1991). The Teaching Portfolio. Bolton, MA: Anker. Seldin, P. & Associates (1993). Successful Use of Teaching Portfolios. Bolton,

MA: Anker. Seldin, P. et al. (1995). Answers to common questions about the teaching portfolio. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 6, (1), 57-64. Smith, R. (1995). Creating a culture of teaching through the teaching portfolio. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 6, (1), 75-99.

23

Urbach, F. (1992). Developing a teaching portfolio. College Teaching, 41, (2), 71-74.

Weiler, R. (1994). Using Published Teaching Techniques to Develop Lesson Plans. Houston, TX: Paper presented at the National Conference of the American School Health Association. Wolf, K. (1996). Developing an effective teaching portfolio. Educational Leadership, 53, (6), 34-37.

Technology for Teaching and Learning

Albright, M. (1996). Instructional Technology and Higher Education: Rewards, Rights, and Responsibilities. Keynote address presented at the Southern Regional Faculty and Instructional Development Consortium, Baton Rouge, LA. Ball, S. (1985). Responsibility of universities toward technology. College Student Journal, 19, (4), 370-379. Bates, A. (2000). Managing Technological Change: Strategies for College and University Leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cole, R. (Ed.) (2000). Issues in Web-Based Pedagogy: A Critical Primer. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Evans, T., & Nation, D. (2000). Changing University Teaching: Reflections on Creating Education Technologies. London, England: Kogan Page. Forsyth, D., & Archer, C. (1997). Technologically assisted instruction and student mastery, motivation, and matriculation. Teaching of Psychology, 24, (3), 207-212.

Goggin, N., Finkenberg, M., & Morrow, J. (1997). Instructional technology in higher education teaching. Quest, 49, (3), 280-290. Hammond, N. et al. (1992). Blocks to the effective use of information technology in higher education. Computers and Education, 18, (1-3), 155-62. Maddux, C., Cummings, R., & Torres-Rivera, E. (1999). Facilitating the integration of information technology into higher education instruction. Educational Technology, 39, (3), 43-47. Mayes, T. (1998). Teaching, technology and talk. Psychologist, 11, (8), 375-377. McCoy, A. (1999). Integration of Technology into Higher Education Teacher Preparation Programs. Presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, San Antonio, TX.

24

Roach, F. (1999). The higher education technology revolution. Black Issues in Higher education, 16, (13), 92-96. Spotts, T. (1999). Faculty use of instructional technology in higher education: Profiles of contributing and deterring factors. Dissertation Abstracts, International: Section A (Humanities and Social Sciences), 59 (10-A), 3738. Ward, D. (1994). Technology and the changing boundaries of higher education. EDUCOM-Review, 29, (1), 23-27. Wilson, B. (1994). Technology and higher education: In search of progress in human learning. Educational Record, 75, (3), 8-16. Website Links The Teaching, Learning, & Technology Affiliate of AAHE (TLT Group) http://www.tltgroup.org/ EDUCAUSE A nonprofit association whose mission is to advance higher education by promoting the intelligent use of information technology. http://www.educause.edu/

Undergraduate Psychology Curriculum Brewer, C. (1997). Undergraduate education in psychology: Will the mermaids sing? American Psychologist, 52, 434-441. Davis, S., & Buskist, W. (Eds.) (2003). The Teaching of Psychology: Essays in Honor of Wilbert J. McKeachie and Charles L. Brewer. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gaff, J., & Ratcliff, J. (Eds.). (1997). Handbook of the Undergraduate Curriculum: A Comprehensive Guide to the Purposes, Structures, Practices, and Change. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Gillam, B. (1994). The undergraduate curriculum in psychology. Australian Psychologist, 29, (3), 178-180. Grasha, A. (1998). "Giving psychology away": Some experiences teaching undergraduates practical psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 25, (2), 85-88. Halpern, D. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53, 449-455.

25

Hill, G. W. (2000). Incorporating a cross-cultural perspective in the undergraduate psychology curriculum: An interview with David Matsumoto. Teaching of Psychology, 27 (1), 71-75. Messer, W., Griggs, R., & Jackson, S. (1999). A national survey of undergraduate psychology degree options and major requirements. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 164-170. McGovern, T. (Ed.) (1993). Handbook for enhancing undergraduate education in psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. McGovern, T., Furumoto, L., Halpern, D., Kimble, G., & McKeachie, W. (1991). Liberal education, study in depth, and the arts and sciences major-psychology. American Psychologist, 46, 598-605. McGovern, T., & Reich, J. (1996). A comment on the Quality Principles. American Psychologist, 51, 252-255. Perlman, B., & McCann, L. (1998). Students' pet peeves about teaching. Teaching of Psychology, 25, (3), 201-203. Perlman, B., & McCann, L. (1999). The structure of the psychology undergraduate curriculum. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 171-176. Perlman, B., & McCann, L. (1999). The most frequently listed courses in the undergraduate psychology curriculum. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 177-182. Steuer, F. (1996). Reading in the undergraduate psychology curriculum. Teaching of Psychology, 23, (4), 226-230. Ware, M. E., & Johnson, D. E. (Eds.) (2003). Handbook of Demonstrations and Activities in the Teaching of Psychology, Second Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbam. Website Links APA Division 2 - Society for the Teaching of Psychology http://www.apa.org/about/division/div2.html Office of Teaching Resources in Psychology http://www.lemoyne.edu/OTRP/

26

Higher Education Publications

Academe A bimonthly publication of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). It analyzes higher education issues from faculty members' perspectives. http://www.aaup.org/academe.htm AAHE Bulletin A monthly publication of the American Association of Higher Education (AAHE), that offers interviews, special reports, and practical how-to articles, as well as being a source of news about AAHE's activities. http://www.aahe.org/bulletin/ Association of American Colleges and Universities Diversity Digest a quarterly newsletter published by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) and part of Diversity Works, a new initiative supported by grants from the Ford Foundation to AAC&U and the University of Maryland at College Park. http://www.diversityweb.org/Digest/ Black Issues in Higher Education The nation's only news magazine dedicated exclusively to minority issues in higher education. Published bi-weekly, Black Issues brings in-depth and up-to-date coverage of the diverse education community, including African Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans, as well as Americans with disabilities and women to every college and university in the United States. http://www.BlackIssues.com Change A bimonthly publication of the Helen Dwight Reid Educational Foundation under the editorial leadership of the American Association for Higher Education. http://www.aahe.org/change/ Communicator The Council of Graduate Schools' newsletter, which is offered 10 times a year on a subscription basis. http://www.cgsnet.org/PublicationsPolicyRes/index.htm#communicator Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education Magazine Each edition brings forth the significance of communication in academic circles, the importance of positive learning experiences, the contributions of both Hispanic and non-Hispanic role models, and constructive observations on policies and procedures in academia. http://www.hispanicoutlook.com/

27

International Journal of Educational Telecommunications (IJET) IJET serves as a forum to facilitate the international exchange of information on the current theory, research, development, and practice of telecommunications in education and training. http://www.aace.org/pubs/ijet/index.html Journal of American Indian Education A peer reviewed scholarly journal which publishes papers specifically related to the education of American Indians and Alaska Natives. http://jaie.asu.edu/ Journal of Blacks in Higher Education http://www.jbhe.com/ Journal of Research on Technology in Education International in scope and thorough in its coverage, the theoretical and conceptual articles in the JRTE define the state of the art and future horizons of educational computing. http://www.iste.org/jrte/index.html Journal on Excellence in College Teaching A peer-reviewed journal published at Miami University by and for faculty at universities and two- and four-year colleges to increase student learning through effective teaching, interest in and enthusiasm for the profession of teaching, and communication among faculty about their classroom experiences. http://ject.lib.muohio.edu/ Liberal Education A quarterly publication of the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). It's focus is on issues of liberal education in higher education. http://www.aacu-edu.org/issues/liberal_education.cfm On Campus With Women (OCWW) Sponsored by AAC&U's Program on the Status and Education of Women (PSEW), OCWW provides readers with the most up-to-date information on women in higher education. It focuses on women's leadership, the campus climate, curriculum and pedagogy, and the newest research about women. http://www.aacu-edu.org/ocww/index.cfm Peer Review A quarterly publication of the Association of American Colleges and Universities. It offers new ideas and practices in undergraduate education. http://www.aacu-edu.org/Publications/pr-cover.html

28

The Chronicle of Higher Education This World Wide Web site is a service of The Chronicle of Higher Education. Published weekly, The Chronicle is the No. 1 news source for college and university faculty members and administrators. http://chronicle.com/

29