Variety Among Technical / Technology Education Doctoral Programs

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

2. 3 – Phase Study • Perceived demand for an online or hybrid doctoral program from a survey of prospective students • Hiring attitudes towards those with a doctoral degree earned online • Status of current doctoral programs

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

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

5. Disturbing Trends

6. Doctoral Graduates in IA/TE

7. Doctoral Graduates in IA/TE

8. Difficulties in Hiring TE FacultyTE Search Failure Rates Source: Brown, D. (2002). Supply and Demand Analysis of Industrial Teacher Education Faculty. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 40(1), 60-73.

9. Difficulties in Hiring TE FacultyApplicants per Position 75% of Brown’s (2002) respondents found the applicant pool “inadequate.” Source: Brown, D. (2002). Supply and Demand Analysis of Industrial Teacher Education Faculty. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 40(1), 60-73.

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

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

12. 2005 Program Penetration Rates • the “proportion of institutions that offer a particular type of face-to-face course or program [and] provide the same type of offering online”(p. 5) • Bachelor’s: 29.9% • Master’s: 43.6% • Doctoral: 12.4% Source: Allen, I. E., and Seaman, J., (2005). Growing by degrees: Online education in the United States, 2005. Needham, MA: Sloan-C. Retrieved October 18, 2006 fromhttp://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/growing_by_degrees.pdf

13. Phase 3 Goal • To record a “snapshot” of existing programs and assess the readiness of the field for distance doctoral programs according to TE doctoral program directors / chairs. • Program Characteristics • Themes and Directions • Faculty Vacancies & Hiring Criteria • Online Elements • Obstacles, Solutions, & Opportunities • Recommendations from Chairs/Program Directors

14. Target Audience • Those designing/implementing doctoral programs • Future applicants for faculty positions • Those contemplating doctoral study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22. Degree Type (N = 19) • Degree Type • 10 PhD only • 2 EdD only • 7 EdD and PhD • Some noted the phasing out of EdD • Consortium Program

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

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

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

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

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

28. Teaching Load • The teaching load varied from 1.5 to 4 three-credit courses per semester with a mean of 2.56. Faculty Load Reported as Number of Three Credit Hour Courses Per Semester (n = 18, Mean = 2.56).

29. Emphasis placed on research, teaching, and service for a new faculty member • Mean Research / Teaching / Service emphases were46% / 36% / 18%but research ranged from 25% to 80%. • (25 / 54 / 21% at Bach & Masters institutions)

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

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

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

33. How much is an online doctorate program needed by the field? • Mean of 4.2 (n=15) on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 10 (extremely) • Reasons: • Perceived weakness • Inability of DE to provide rich experience • Would not be received as well during hiring

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

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

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

37. Program Opportunities

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

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

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

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

42. Respondents’ Recommendations • Demand quality • “I don’t like it. Don’t compromise quality.”

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

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