|
|||||
|
Graduate
Certificate in College and University Faculty Preparation A Proposal for
a Program at Howard University Introduction and Rationale Numerous indicators exist in Ph.D. programs to mark the acquisition of academic and research competence by students progressing toward graduation with a doctorate. At the end of the very first term in a program, and
every term thereafter, students’ transcripts bear the evidence of
letter grades denoting the level of attainment in the courses assumed to
be essential in a discipline. Typically
those grades will figure significantly in determining whether or not
students are eligible for the financial support of fellowships and
assistantships. Comprehensive or qualifying examinations provide another
kind of testament. When
students pass such examinations, they are deemed ready to become formal
candidates for a degree. Then,
when a dissertation prospectus is approved by a graduate faculty
committee, students receive still further formal indication that a body
of scholars believes they are capable of the basic work of a scholar,
that is, research. And,
finally, scholarly training concludes with a required dissertation
defense in which success results in certification of a candidate’s
preparedness for a professional career in research.
When prospective employers review the dossiers of
applicants for academic posts, they are fully aware of this lengthy
process preceding award of the Ph.D.; consequently, they may interview
job applicants with assurance that the credential of the terminal degree
signifies passage through an extended regimen of practical assessment, a
regimen that provided candidates with steady feedback and direction as
they prepared themselves for scholarly careers.
Now suppose that a prospective employer wishes to
have similar assurance that a job candidate holding the Ph.D. has
appropriate skill and preparation for teaching, which is probably what
the prospective employer’s job announcement stated as the primary
responsibility of the open position.
Where may that employer turn for some practical evidence about a
candidate? For that matter,
how can job candidates readily indicate they are as prepared to succeed
in teaching as they are in research? Today the answer to both questions may be that
evidence of teaching skill can only be attained by anecdotal reports,
because until recently doctoral education at Howard University as
elsewhere marginalized the expectation that Ph.D. graduates would teach.
Of course, everyone knew that graduates entering academic
employment would be assigned to classrooms and/or laboratories for 12
contact hours (more or less) a week, 168 hours (12 X 14) a semester, 336
hours each academic year. Although
one’s hours free for research might only be the same in number as for
teaching, if not fewer, the unexamined assumption of most doctoral
programs was that teaching is an art intuitively grasped, and, if not
that, then an ability only to be learned in the doing.
So research and disciplinary content received emphasis, teaching
honor in the breach. Initiatives such as Preparing Future Faculty and
the Responsive Ph.D. in which the Graduate School is a primary
participant, as well as other programs, such as Re-Envisioning the
Ph.D., where we are contributors, demand re-examination of the
assumption that research training should continue as the sum and
substance of doctoral education. Specifically these initiatives are crafting ways to expand
the center. To put it
another way, it is becoming increasingly apparent that training for
academic careers must address all of the professional functions of
academic life. Eventually, in a generation perhaps, doctoral
education may be completely different as a result of such initiatives
named above, and their successors.
In the meantime, universities throughout the nation have found
that a more immediate way to add new value to curricula is through
certificate programs. As
Dr. Wayne Patterson’s recent paper, Ensuring
the Quality of Certificate Programs (Continuing
Higher Education Review, 65: 112-27), observes there are now over
500 certificate programs in universities. So now we may have a more satisfactory answer to
the questions about where prospective employers and employees may turn
for information about a candidate’s preparation for teaching. The
answer is a certificate that supplements the credential of the Ph.D.
with evidence that doctoral graduates and job applicants possess some
knowledge of pedagogy and learning theory, some awareness of issues
challenging contemporary higher education, some skill in course delivery
and assessment of student progress.
In short, a certificate could document objectively completion of
formal study in theory and practice of teaching.
It could attest that new Ph.D.s just entering upon professional
careers have consciously and deliberately considered how they will
convey to their immediate, and first, audiences of undergraduate
students the knowledge their research abilities will yield them. Following the reasoning outlined here, Dean Orlando
L. Taylor designated a committee of Graduate Faculty and Graduate School
Staff in February 2002 to develop a proposal for a Graduate Certificate
in College and University Faculty Preparation.
The plan resulting from the committee’s deliberations is
detailed below. Curriculum and Requirements
Most graduate certificate programs require
completion of between 12 and 18 semester credit hours.
In recognition of the heavy demands made upon the time of
doctoral students by their disciplinary studies, this proposal specifies
completion of 12 credit hours. Acceptance
of these credit hours for the doctorate as
well as for the Certificate reuirements shall be determined by
individual departments. References
to credit hours in this document pertain only to completion of
requirements for the Certificate.
In the event that this
proposal for a Certificate is approved by the appropriate bodies,
a core composed of such courses as those suggested below might be
established. This core,
however, will be subject to approval by the Certificate Program
Committee (see page 6), and all courses in the core and certificate
offering will require approval by the Curriculum Committee of the
Graduate School. In addition to the core, other requirements will
include elective courses and a Field Experience.
The total credit requirements will number twelve (12) hours. Proposed Core:
Teaching as a Scholarly Activity
3 credits, one semester Taking its inspiration from the emergence of the new Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (STL), this new course will survey theories of cognition, acquaint students with STL data bases, and instruct students in designing and carrying out research on teaching. The focus of course activity will be students progressing through a process of designing courses in their disciplines that will require them to address, for example, the audience of the course, the academic level of the course, modes of assessment appropriate to the content, the manner of delivery appropriate to audience and content, and other matters of course conduct. A singular aim of the course will be to demonstrate in practice an integration of research skills, as acquired by students in their disciplinary studies, and selection of learning sites (classrooms, laboratories, seminar rooms, online) as a field for new application of those skills. Outcomes: (1) students will have acquired a template for course designs; (2) students will recognize that teaching a course is an investigative project; (3) students will produce prospective courses for their teaching portfolios. Teaching Styles and
Methods 2 credits, one
semester Conducted through a set of workshops facilitated by consultants, this course will provide hands-on experience, for example, with Student or Learning Centered Classrooms, diversified instruction, tutorials, mentoring, peer instruction, conduct of Socratic instruction, etc. Outcomes: students will gain practical knowledge of a range of teaching styles from which they may select for their own teaching.
Issues in College and
University Teaching 1
credit, one semester Besides some topical orientation about such current issues
discussed in The Chronicle
of Higher Education and Black
Issues in Higher Education, this course will employ a case study method to address perennial issues of ethics in grading and instruction, and appropriate professional conduct. The course will also introduce students to publications of associations treating educational issues and will be provided a bibliography of resources. Outcomes: students will be acquainted with discourses surrounding teaching and will be able to use internet and library resources to familiarize themselves with topics as they arise. Electives in
Disciplinary Instruction 3
credits The use of electives to complete credit hour requirements for the Certificate will permit articulation of the Graduate School requirements with offerings established by academic departments to address teaching. For example, the Department of English has a 3 credit hour course “Teaching College English” (ENGG 299) that explores techniques and issues directly associated with the discipline. English expects all doctoral students to take this course; therefore, it is reasonable to accept the 299 as an elective also for the Certificate. This reasoning results in this principle: Where
academic departments offer courses regarding instruction in the
discipline, such courses will be accepted as electives counted toward
award of the Graduate Certificate in College and University Faculty
Preparation. Moreover,
departments are encouraged to create such courses as a means of
enriching the Certificate program for their students. General
Electives A preliminary survey of graduate course offerings reveals that existing courses in Education—for instance in Evaluation Methodology—could be justified as electives to satisfy requirements for the Certificate. When the Certificate program is in place, the Graduate School will circulate a request to all departments to submit proposals for existing courses to serve as electives for the Certificate. It will be specified that these proposals include rationale and justification for authorizing the course for doctoral students in other departments. Teaching On-Line 1 credit This new course will provide instruction in the use of course delivery systems and will require that students place a course they previously designed on the web. Outcome: students will be able to demonstrate an
ability to incorporate electronic technology into courses as enrichment
or primary mode of delivery. Field
Experience To complete the Certificate requirements, students
will undertake a teaching assignment for an undergraduate course in
their home disciplines. Such
teaching shall be supervised, and subject to observation by the
Coordinator of the Certificate Program.
Students may seek mentoring and assistance during the teaching
experience either from faculty in the home department (the ideal
arrangement) or from faculty recommended by the Coordinator. Upon
completion of the course, students will receive written detailed
evaluations which they may choose (but are not mandated) to place in
their teaching portfolios. In the case of a student who has had responsibility
for teaching a course at Howard University, and been supervised during
the experience and evaluated in writing afterwards, that student, upon
presentation of documentary evidence (and its acceptance by the Graduate
School) shall be deemed to have met the field experience requirement for
teaching. Faculty for Certificate Courses
Two of the Core courses—“Teaching as a
Scholarly Activity” and “Issues in College and University
Teaching”—will draw instructional staff from persons affiliated with
the Graduate School, particularly the Dean who has been offering similar
courses to PFF students for several years.
“Teaching as a Scholarly Activity” will also require
presentations by select specialists to be recruited from Howard faculty.
“Teaching Styles and Methods” will be entirely
presented by invited specialists. For “Teaching Online” the Graduate School will
seek to have presentations made by Founders Library and ISAS staff. The elective courses are among existing or soon to
be established courses and will, therefore, include Certificate students
in regular departmental courses. It shall be a practice to select instructional
staff who hold Graduate Faculty appointments or, in the case of outside
consultants, have comparable qualifications.
Admission to the Certificate
Program
Applicants selected for the Certificate Program
shall be · A currently enrolled student in the Graduate School in good academic standing; · A student with a GPA sufficient for appointment as a Teaching Assistant. Maintenance of Eligibility
Students accepted into the Certificate Program must
remain in good academic standing. Those
students whose GPA drops below 3.0 shall be terminated from the
Certificate program. Participating Departments
Initially departments invited to join in
implementing the Certificate Program shall be those with departmental
PFF programs or departments with a significant PFF enrollment among
doctoral students. Program Administration
The governance structure of the Program shall
include a Program Committee
and a Program Coordinator.
The Program Committee shall consist of six members
designated by the Dean of the Graduate School following consultation
with constituent departments. The
Committee shall meet at least once each semester and at other times as
convened by the Dean or by a majority of the Committee membership. The Program Committee shall have responsibility for
admissions, certification of program completion, authorization of
certificate awards, evaluation of proposed core and proposed elective
courses, and endorsement of designs and alternatives for the field
experience. The Coordinator of the Certificate Program shall be
designated by the Dean of the Graduate School.
The responsibilities of the Coordinator shall be to preside at
Program Committee meetings, to make arrangements to employ consultants
and staff for Certificate courses when they are not taught by
departmental faculty, to supervise the maintenance of records, and to
undertake visitation of courses being taught by students during their
Field Experience. Members of the Program Committee and the
Coordinator of the Program shall be members of the Graduate Faculty. Program Assessment
The Certificate Program shall be subject to
guidelines similar to those established for all degree programs in the
Graduate School. In
addition, it shall be the responsibility of the Program Committee and
Program Coordinator to administer student evaluations of all courses
authorized for the Program. Moreover,
the Coordinator and the Dean of the Graduate School will convene all
students participating in the Program for focus group discussions.
Faculty participating in the Certificate Program shall be asked
to complete a written evaluation each time they teach in the Program. All assessments shall be reviewed by the Program
Committee, Coordinator, and Dean of the Graduate School. A summary of assessments and a discussion of the
Program operation shall be included in the annual report of the Graduate
School submitted to the Office of the President and be available for
inspection by governing bodies of the Graduate School. Membership of the Proposal Committee This proposal for a Graduate Certificate Program in
College and University Faculty Preparation was prepared by a committee
appointed by the Dean of the Graduate School and consisting of the
following members: Dr. Constance Ellison Education Dr. Emmanuel Glakpe Associate Dean Dr. Wayne Patterson Special Assistant to the dean Dr. Michael Radis Director, AGEP Dr. John Reilly English Dr. Al Roberts Psychology Dr. Aaron Stills Psychoeducational Studies The Committee was assisted by Ms. Mercedes Ebanks, Ms. Rhonda Jones, and Ms. Jennifer Young.
|
|||||
|
| Admissions |
Graduate Programs |
Special Programs |
Financial
Support | Rules and Regulations | |
|||||
|
