1 / 26

Program Enhancement in Human/Family and Consumer Sciences

Program Enhancement in Human/Family and Consumer Sciences. Annamaria Csizmadia Doctoral Student Department of Human Development & Family Studies Stephen R. Jorgensen, Ph. D. College of Human Environmental Sciences University of Missouri-Columbia.

duena
Download Presentation

Program Enhancement in Human/Family and Consumer Sciences

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Program Enhancement in Human/Family and Consumer Sciences Annamaria Csizmadia Doctoral Student Department of Human Development & Family Studies Stephen R. Jorgensen, Ph. D. College of Human Environmental Sciences University of Missouri-Columbia

  2. Position of HS/ FCS Colleges in the Hierarchy of University Disciplines • Core disciplines: English, Math, Biology, History, Philosophy, Agriculture (in land-grant institutions) • Middle circle: Economics, Sociology, Psychology • Outer circle: Journalism, Law, Medicine, Agriculture, Health Professions, Business, Human Environmental Sciences/ Family Consumer Sciences • Colleges in the outer circle are the most vulnerable to budget cuts and reorganization, while core disciplines are less threatened. Core disciplines CORE DISCIPLINES

  3. HS/ FCS Colleges and the Land Grant Tradition • Research at higher institutions evolved along the development of farming and agriculture • 1862 Morrill Act establishes the system of (106) land grant universities • Purpose: • 1.) to educate “the common man” (teaching) • 2.) to produce new knowledge for agriculture (research) • 3.) to establish outreach programs (extension) • In subsequent years, minority institutions also receive land grant status (e.g., 1894-18 historically Black universities; 1994-31 American Indian universities)

  4. Establishment of HS/ FCS Programs • Late 1800s: Realization that not only agriculture, but also family life matters • 1909: Ellen Swallow Richards establishes the HS/ FCS profession to address family life in urban areas • First program addressed water sanitation and over time new programs, such as nutrition, consumer, housing, clothing, and textiles were developed • Later home economics separated from other programs and became an independent unit • 1970s: these independent units changed their names (many to Human Ecology) to shed the negative, unscientific image that the term “home economics“ evoked (universities did not adopt a uniform name across the country, hence different names of HS/ FCS colleges and programs today)

  5. Importance of HS/ FCS Programs The goal of these programs is to develop human potential and to support families in a holistic way (through extension services and interdisciplinary collaboration) HS/ FCS students graduate with a different set of skills than if they had graduated from other departments Study Purpose In recent years, some HS/ FCS colleges have been eliminated or restructured across the US Taskforce for Program Enhancement: An inter-organizational task force of university administrators to examine program success in HS/ FCS units. As part of this effort, we conducted a web-based survey to identify program characteristics that administrators consider important for program success. Study Background

  6. Research Questions • What program characteristics are important for program success in HS/ FCS units? • Do administrators rate the importance of certain program characteristics differentially depending on the type of institution and the amount of annual funding their unit receives? • If there is a difference in administrators’ ratings depending on these factors, what is the nature of this difference?

  7. Method Participants • We distributed our web-based survey to 113 administrators in HS/ FCS units. • Final N= 60 • Of the 60, 3 respondents answered only the background questions. • No data on gender, age, and race

  8. Method (cont’d) Measure • Program Enhancement Survey: • web-based survey distributed via Surveymonkey.com • Instrument pretested with Task Force for Program Advancement members • 5 items on background information (e. g. institution type, years as chief administrator of HS/ FCS unit, program size, funding, etc.) • 39-item Likert-type scale of program characteristics (1=not very important, 5=extremely important) • 1 open-ended item: “Please tell us what other program characteristics/ variables and factors may be important that have not been mentioned in this survey.”

  9. Rating Scale • 1 – Not important at all • 2 – Slightly important • 3 – Moderately important • 4 – Very important • 5 – Extremely important • 6 - N/ A

  10. Dependent Variables 1. Teaching performance 2. Teaching awards 3. Service learning programs 4. Professional journal publication 5. Research journal publication 6 Teaching journal publication 7. Extension journal publication 8. Trade journals & magazines 9. Research awards 10. Undergraduate student involvement 11. Graduate student involvement 12. External funding 13. Public federal funding 14. Public state funding

  11. Dependent Variables (cont’d) 15. Public regional/ local funding 16. Private funding sources 17. Funding to support research 18. Funding to support teaching 19. Funding to support service 20. Extension or outreach in general 21. Local extension or outreach 22. State extension or outreach 23. US extension or outreach 24. Global extension or outreach 25. Service to institution & profession 26. Service to home unit & department 27. Service to broader school & college 28. Service to broader institution

  12. Dependent Variables (cont’d) 29. Service to the profession 30. Interdisciplinary research collaboration 31. Interdisciplinary program development 32. Good assessment plan to assess learning 33. Referred conference presentations 34. Strong, articulate dean 35. Continuity in leadership 36. Faculty cohesiveness 37. Commitment to integrative/ interdisciplinary philosophy 38. Effective communication between dean of HS/ FCS unit and university administration 39. Success of fund development

  13. Institutional Characteristics • The majority (28) of our survey respondents reported being at a research intensive, doctoral granting institution • A good number of our respondents reported working at primarily baccalaureate institutions (19 out of 60) • Only 8 administrators reported being at primarily master’s granting institutions • Of the 60 survey respondents, 2 chose other and 3 did not indicate their institution type

  14. Institution Type

  15. Administrator and ProgramCharacteristics • Survey respondents have been chief administrators of Human Sciences and Family Consumer Sciences on average 6 to 9 years • Over 1/3 of the respondents have been in such positions for 10 years or more (20 of 60 or 33.3%) while only 17% (10 out of 60) have been chief administrators for only a couple of years at the most • Almost half of our survey participants reported that their undergraduate program had 101-500 students (27 out of 60) • Only 2 reported having an undergraduate program with fewer than 100 students and 11 reported having an undergraduate program with 1301 or more students • While about 2/3 (35, 58%) of the surveyed administrators had no doctoral programs, about 1/3 (17, 28%) had no master’s programs • Of those administrators who did report having graduate programs, most reported having master’s or doctoral programs with 61 students or more (Of 60 respondents, 14 reported master’s programs and 11 reported doctoral programs of this size.)

  16. Years as Chief Administrator of HS/ FCS Unit

  17. Program Size

  18. Graduate Program Size

  19. Sponsored Project Funding Through Grants and Contracts from External Agencies on Average (Over the Past 3 Years) • The number of survey participants who reported having $250,000 or less annual funding was the same as the number of those who reported having more than $1,500,000 annual funding (31.7% or 19 out of 60, respectively) • Only 2 participants reported having an annual funding between $500,000 and $1,000,000, all the other participants reported either $500,000 or less or $1,000,000 or more

  20. Funding from External Agencies on Average over the Past Three Years

  21. Group Comparisons Dependent Mean Doctoral All Other < $1 Mio. > $1 Mio. Variable (1-5) Units Unit Types Funding Funding 1. Teaching performance 4.35 4.35 4.36 4.42 4.32 2. Teaching awards 3.5 3.61 3.39 3.35 3.68 3. Service learning progr. 3.5 3.1*3.82* 3.6 3.33 4. Professional journ. publ. 4.28 4.31 4.25 4.35 4.32 5. Research journ. publ. 4.33 4.65**4.04**4.11**4.68** 6. Teaching journ. publ. 4.0 3.85 4.15 4.16 3.88 7. Extension journ. publ. 3.8 3.73 3.89 4.11 3.62 8. Trade journal publ. 2.74 2.69 2.79 2.96 2.6 9. Research awards 4.17 4.46*3.89*3.96*4.48* 10. Undergrad. student inv. 3.64 3.65 3.63 3.6 3.76 11. Grad. student inv. 4.05 4.69 4.14 4.07*4.8* 12. External funding 4.63 4.77 4.50 4.35***4.96*** 13. Public federal funding 4.58 4.69 4.46 4.27***4.88*** * p< .05 ** p< .01 *** p< .001

  22. Group Comparisons (cont’d)Dependent Mean Doctoral All Other < $1 Mio. > $1 Mio. Variable (1-5) Units Unit Types Funding Funding 14. Public state fund. 4.37 4.38 4.36 4.15† 4.56† 15. Publ. local fund. 4.24 4.11 4.37 4.12 4.32 16. Private fund. 4.44 4.42 4.46 4.23 4.68 17. Research fund. 4.60 4.73 4.46 4.35***4.88*** 18. Teach. fund. 4.30 4.08 4.43 4.23 4.21 19. Service fund. 3.89 3.84 3.93 3.73 4.00 20. Extension 3.83 3.80 3.86 3.73 3.92 21. Local exten. 3.91 3.76 4.04 3.85 3.87 22. State exten. 3.96 3.88 4.04 3.85 4.0 23. US exten. 3.64 3.61 3.67 3.48 3.76 24. Global exten. 3.53 3.32 3.71 3.35 3.67 25. Service to profes. 3.87 3.77 3.96 3.88 3.80 26. Serv. home unit 3.83 3.69 3.96 3.85 3.80 27. Serv. college 3.78 3.73 3.82 3.85 3.68 * p< .05 ** p< .01 *** p< .001

  23. Group Comparisons (cont’d)Dependent Mean Doctoral All Other < $1 Mio. > $1 Mio. Variable (1-5) Units Unit Types Funding Funding 28. Serv. Institution 3.77 3.76 3.79 3.73 3.79 29. Serv. Profession 3.87 3.88 3.86 3.81 3.88 30. Interdisc. Res. 4.09 4.42**3.79** 3.96* 4.40* 31. Int.disc. Prog. D. 3.96 4.04 3.89 4.04 4.04 32. Assessment 4.22 3.92* 4.5* 4.38 4.08 33. Conf. Present. 3.92 3.92 3.93 3.92 3.96 34. Strong, artic. Dean 4.68 4.77 4.61 4.61 4.80 35. Continuity in leader. 4.11 4.11 4.11 4.08 4.20 36. Faculty cohesive. 4.34 4.36 4.31 4.36 4.40 37. Integr. Philosophy 3.66 3.38 3.93 3.69 3.68 38. Effective comm. 4.70 4.77 4.64 4.61 4.84 39. Success of fund dev. 4.26 4.46 4.07 3.80**4.72** * p< .05 ** p< .01 *** p< .001

  24. Institution Type • Service learning programs delivered by administrators’ units (F(3,48)=5.468, p<.01). • Doctoral vs. Baccalaureate (Mean difference= -1.04167, p<.01). • Publication in refereed extension journals (F(3,49)=6.624, p=.001). • Master’s vs. Research intensive (Mean difference= 1.519, p<.05) • Master’s vs. Baccalaureate (Mean difference=2.132, p=.001) • Research awards and recognition by faculty members (F(3,50)=2.869, p<.05) • Doctoral vs. Master’s (Mean difference=.9615, p<.05) • Service to the academic institution and profession (F(3,50)=3.062, p<.05) • Baccalaureate vs. “Other” (Mean difference=1.666, p<.05) • Success of fund development (F(3,49)=3.14, p<.05) • Doctoral vs. Master’s (Mean difference= 1.211, p<.05) • Master’s vs. Baccalaureate (Mean difference=-1.1617, p<.05)

  25. Annual Funding • Publications in trade journals (F(4,46)=3.1, p<.05) • Units with $1,000,000-1,500,000 funding vs. Units with more than $1,500,000 (Mean difference=1.547, p<.05) • Success of fund development (F(4,45)=4.206, p=.006) • Units with $250,000-500,000 funding vs. Units with $1,000,000-1,500,000 funding (Mean difference=-1,714, p<.05) • Units with $250,000-500,000 funding vs. Units with more than $1,500,000 funding (Mean difference=-1.722, p<.05)

  26. Discussion • Summary of findings: • Administrators of research intensive, doctoral units rated research-related program characteristics (awards, publication & presentation) on average higher in importance than did administrators of all other institution types. • Administrators whose units had an annual funding of more than $ 1,000,000 rated funding-related program characteristics higher in importance than did administrators of all other institution types. • Limitations: • Relatively small non-random sample • A series of ANOVAs may have increased the risk of Type I error • Strengths: • Comprehensive list of program characteristics • Sample drawn from a nationwide list of HS/ FCS unit administrators • Recommendations: • Future studies with greater N • Include culturally relevant program characteristics

More Related