Fall 2004-Spring 2005 This time marks another re-organization of reform efforts. Those sub-commitees which were making progress were preserved, whereas our efforts to support a "culture of inquiry" by strengthening the research preparation of doctoral students became the central focus, in line with the national debate about educational research. This centralization afforded an in-depth collection and analysis of data to provide evidence in support of a school-wide conversation. The organizational chart to the right represents this reorganization. Larger version of flow chart

Successes and Failures: Our major success during this year stems from our reorganization of the project and change in strategy. In particular, we were able to refocus our attention on improving research preparation - a priority since the beginning of our CID work -- by meeting with the inquiry faculty rather than the large leadership team and by providing unexpected evidence to the faculty and administration. In short, we spent several months gathering data about research preparation of Ph.D. students in the school over a period of five years (1999-2004). The data held a number of surprises. We then presented and discussed the results at two school-wide faculty meetings. Of course, national and scholarly debates about research preparation in Education during that year helped draw faculty attention to our own situation. We have detailed this strategy in the three sections below: Data Collection, Model Development and Faculty Communication.

Data Collection: We gathered statistical data which sought to answer two questions: (1) What types of careers are our graduates pursuing for which a rigorous research preparation would be required? (2) What has the research preparation been for our Ph.D. students in terms of breadth and depth of research course work and in terms of preparation for dissertation research? To answer the former question, we analyzed the current professional positions of 184 alumni who graduated from our Ph.D. programs between 1997 and 2003. For the second, we sampled 159 Ph.D. students' programs of study for the period 1999-2004. The information we put together for faculty was surprising, even shocking to some, since there had been an attitude among many advisors that we required sufficient coursework in inquiry, that our students were getting a balanced combination of research methodology courses appropriate for their research interests, and that those students who intended to pursue a career in the professoriate sought out advanced research methodology courses. We collected data to show that the research preparation, in terms of difficulty of course chosen (e.g. intermediate and advanced level) and type of course chosen (e.g. both quantitative and qualitative) was, at best, uneven. In many cases the preparation could only be characterized as insufficient, especially in cases where students wrote dissertations using methodologies in which they had had only taken an introductory methods course. Please see the charts below for a more in-depth look at this data collection process.

Model Development: Based on the perceived insufficiencies in the current system as evidented by the data, we developed an overall model which balanced breadth with depth. During this process we also researched the models in place at other CID instutions, such as the University of Colorodo and University of North Carolina. The latter become important during the faculty communiction portion of this process because it allowed us to showcase how similar institutions are preparing their doctoral students in terms of research. Larger version of model

Model Development (Continued) In order to make the model as concrete as possible we also suggested possible coursework. This included a fairly substantial shift of the introductory research methodology course from an initial required doctoral level course to a pre-requisite course for doctoral study. Larger version of model

Faculty Communication: This phase involved three important steps. First, we met with the research methodology faculty to discuss both the models and the data. We considered it critical to have their support for the models and hear their responses to the data. The faculty members were extremely supportive since this information afforded amunition for their own concern about the courses recommended to students by their advisors, their own plans to offer new and more advanced methods courses, and their interest in requiring both depth and breadth of inquiry courses covering a spectrum of approaches. Second, with backing from the inquiry faculty, we presented the data in a powerpoint presentation at two school-wide faculty meetings. We also offered the models for consideration at program area meetings and provided the faculty with a timeline for discussing the models as they related to their specific program areas. This timeline appears as an imbedded graphic to your right. Third, Luise McCarty attended the program area meetings (of those programs interested in reform) to encourage faculty to make the proposed changes. To date eight of the program areas have increased the number of courses required and several other areas are still considering how they might change their research methodology requirements. Our next goal is to have the model endorsed by the school-wide policy council. Below you will find a link to the presentation referenced above. Faculty Presentation Powerpoint

Challenges While we were very pleased with the progress made in terms of reforming research preparation, we made very little progress in developing the annual review model. This model, as demostrated through both our study of mentoring and of the qualifying exam, is an important aspect of reform at our institution. Further, it works in conjunction with the research preparation model insofar as it will institutionalize an annual review of student work, including research methods, before the qualifying exam phase. It is our intention to continue developing this model in hopes that all programs will adopt some form of annual review of doctoral student progress.