The Preparing Future Faculty Program (PFF)

1. The Preparing Future Faculty Program (PFF) A summary of its national evaluation conducted by West Ed, by Myles Boylan

2. Outline of Discussion • What is PFF? • Is it unique? • The case for -- & potential impact of PFF • Its funding history • Its impact - basic data about number of various participants • Its impact – as measured by survey data from 4 categories of respondents (graduate faculty, graduate students, partner institution faculty, graduate deans) • Synthesis and final observations

3. PFF Defined • Overarching PFF goals are to acculturate doctoral students to a broader range of faculty careers & better prepare them for teaching and service. [largely successful] • A secondary PFF objective is to capture the interest of more graduate faculty in engaging issues of teaching effectiveness, scholarship, and student learning. [largely unsuccessful]

4. PFF Defined (2) • A standard PFF organizational “unit” = 1 doctoral univ. + 2-17 institutional partners more dedicated to undergraduate teaching. • AAC&U, CGS, and in 11 disciplinary societies coordinate these units. • A local PFF director and select faculty & administrators provide services to participating graduate students. • Unit disciplines range from 1 to many.

5. PFF Defined – Activities: • Seminars on faculty careers effective teaching • Mentoring graduate students for teaching & service • Visits/ internships at “partner” institutions • Career guidance & job search assistance ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- • Student participation -selective in some units • - typically voluntary (rarely widespread) • Certificates are awarded by some units

6. PFF intersects other activities and initiatives • PFF inspired by efforts to improve TAs • Many PFF units located in T&L Centers • But PFF is more than TA training; It seeks to acculturate students to a broader view. - It also covers advising, mentoring, & service • PFF is served by Re-envisioning the Ph.D. and overlaps with • The Responsive Ph.D. • The Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate (ASU, Howard, Duke, IU, & CO are in all 3)

7. The Case for Broadening Grad Ed (PFF) • NAGPS survey (32K responses) found students want broad curricula for more career choice & good information about careers. • Many in graduate faculty unfamiliar with faculty life in other types of institutions. • “Culture” dominated by research focus • Excess inventory of research postdocs with few & fading teaching and service skills

8. PFF Funding History • Began in 1994 with a Pew grant tto AAC&U & CGS (about 50% given to 17 universities) • Pew provided Phase 2 funds in 1996 to 15 universities (10 also supported in Phase 1) • NSF grant in 1999 thru AAC&U & CGS to 5 disciplinary associations to 19 departments • APS grant in 2000 through 6 new disciplinary associations to 25 departments • Total of $7.8 million awarded; $2.8m to depts.

9. PFF Impact – Numbers Supported • 44 unique doctoral universities (28% of recent Ph.D.s, but many fields are not in PFF) • Other PFF institutions have started w/o external funding • 339 unique cluster institutions • 11 disciplinary societies in Phases 3 & 4 • ~ 4,000 students have participated fully • Only a fraction of eligible students have chosen to be in PFF

10. According to 175 Grad Faculty Respondents, PFF developed better skills: % of PFF Participants (vs. Non-PFF Peers) Once New Faculty Five Point Scale (5 = High, 3 = Moderate, 1 = Low) • 88% of Graduate faculty say PFF has improved quality. • 67% believe it has improved faculty mentoring. • 63% believe it has changed the culture in their dept. • 48% believe it has changed the culture in their institution. • - (no difference: single discipline vs. hybrid PFF units)

11. Incentives for graduate faculty participation • PFF grants disallowed direct salary support, but • 73% of the faculty indicated that their efforts on behalf of PFF are “valued and rewarded.” • More detailed evidence from discussions and case studies indicate that faculty were not financially rewarded. • Further, PFF work typically counts as service, not scholarship. • PFF graduate faculty relatively scarce in most units (e.g. 4 respondents per unit)

12. How important were PFF activities to 963 responding PFF graduate students? * On career options, faculty roles, differences in institution types, and job search. ** Through teaching experience & guidance, and by developing broader credentials.

13. Opinions of PFF graduate students • Most Valued Specific Activities • experienced gained teaching courses (80%+) • teaching mentoring (67%) • projects at partner instns // courses & seminars • 71% // 67% of current PFF grad students • 67% // 61% of those now in faculty jobs • 60% // 61% of others now employed • Least Valued Activities • informal meetings [50% of academics; 40% if out] • Interactions with graduate students from other departments [48% of students, 41% of employed]

14. Perspectives of PFF graduate students • Did PFF help get your post-PhD. Job? • Yes = 63% of new ten-track faculty (N = 195) • Yes = 42% of new non-TT faculty (N = 113) • Yes = 21% of those in non-faculty jobs (N = 140) • Recommend to peers? • 73% said “yes” unconditionally • 25% said “yes” only for students planning academic careers • PFF had larger effect on completion (12%) than on increasing time-to-degree (only 9%)

15. 31 responding grad deans on PFF Impact • 75% thought Phases 1 and 2 had changed graduate education - mostly “moderately.” • 50% thought Phases 3 and 4 had changed graduate education. -- 30% thought Phase 4 had a dramatic impact. • They think that their graduate faculty are: • “very interested” in changing grad ed (only 9%) • only “somewhat interested” in changing (69%) • “not interested” in changing (16%)

16. Synthesis and Conclusions • PFF has been surprisingly successful (given funding) for graduate students on faculty career paths [students, faculty, and deans]. • It has been moderately successful in changing culture of graduate education in participating departments and universities [faculty & deans]. • It has not been able to achieve participation by a critical mass of faculty [deans, data], even though initial resistance to it has faded. • It has been partly institutionalized in many of the 44 universities and completely so in a few [case studies, survey responses].

17. Synthesis and Conclusions (2) • Inter-departmental PFF activities tend to be less valued by students than those focused in their discipline. • Inter-institutional activities are very useful. • Seminars and courses are very useful. • Specific teaching focus is prized by most. • Hybrid PFF model embracing depts. & the graduate dean is most effective & most likely to become institutionalized.