PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY
Title of Degree Program: 13.0406 Ed.D. Higher Education
Majors listed under the degree: Higher Education
Specialization areas include:
- Adult Education/Human Resources
- International/Intercultural Education
Minors listed under the degree: None
Program Leader: Dr. Glenda Droogsma Musoba
Program Faculty:
- Dr. Benjamin Baez, joined the College of Education (COE) in 2005-06 as Associate
Professor;
- Dr. Joy Blanchard, joined the COE in 2010-11 as Assistant Professor;
- Dr. Roger Gonzalez, joined the COE in 2005-06 as Assistant Professor;
- Dr. Glenda Musoba, joined the COE in 2005-06 as Assistant Professor.
Part I: Overview
1.
What goals did you develop as a result of your last program review?
a. While no program specific goals are available, overall College goals from
the last program review included:
i. Strengthen the quality and rigor of the programs.
ii. Increase levels of research funding and scholarly productivity of
the faculty.
iii. Increase completion and shorten time to degree.
iv. Increase the number of graduates.
2.
What are your major accomplishments tied to these goals? Are there other
significant accomplishments that you reached as a result of continuous quality
improvement and your ability to capture emerging trends, needs, and
opportunities?
a. Strengthened quality and rigor: Because of excessively high doctoral
student-to-faculty ratios and significant turnover, the program informally
stopped admissions for over one year in 2008-09. This freeze allowed
faculty to serve the students that were enrolled and provide support to
some students that were lingering. The program curriculum also went
through a full revision in the 2009-10 academic year before reopening
1
admissions. In the new program, students bring in less transfer credits
and must take more research courses. The new program is more rigorous
and will better prepare students to write their dissertations.
b. Increased research funding and scholarly productivity: New faculty
members are applying for grants. One faculty member has been
successful at securing external funding by means of one small grant and
one for approximately $500,000 over three years.
c. Increased completion: In previous years, 71 percent of students had
completed their degree in seven or fewer years. This progression is below
the national average of 7.54 years for education doctoral students (Kim &
Otts, 2010). Twenty-nine percent of students completed their degrees
above the national average. This area continues to be an ongoing goal for
improvement. The most recent curriculum revision was geared at
enhancing students’ readiness to write their dissertations. Program
students were making timely progress through coursework but slowing
down or stopping in the dissertation writing stage. The program also
offers a dissertation proposal writing course which helps students stay on
track once they finish the coursework.
d. Increased numbers of graduates: While the number of higher education
doctoral graduates per year has slowly risen over the last ten years, the
program halted growth at the current level in order to increase quality
and shorten time to degree completion. The program has now re-opened
admissions.
Part II: Program Analysis
3.
What is the vision of your program(s)? Your mission?
a. The program follows the vision and mission of the Conceptual
Framework of the COE. Further, the program culminating in the Doctor
of Education in Higher Education, provides the opportunity for students
to enhance analytical and research skills for leadership roles in institutions
of higher education. Graduates are prepared for academic and
administrative positions, as faculty, or as policy analysts in federal, state,
or institutional roles. The program is designed to stimulate research
related to higher education, particularly in urban settings.
b. In addition to the specific outcomes of each course and course
requirements, the Ed.D. candidates in Higher Education are expected to
meet three overall learning outcomes: (1) stewardship of the discipline, (2)
reflective inquiry, and (3) mindful educator. Each outcome is discussed
below.
i. First, as stewards of the discipline, doctoral candidates in higher
education administration will have the knowledge commensurate
2
with doctoral-level study of the research and theories associated
with the historical, philosophical, administrative, and policy
aspects of the field of higher education. They will also exhibit
expert knowledge in one or more subjects, theories, and
methodologies in the study of higher education.
ii. Second, as reflective inquirers, doctoral candidates in Higher
Education will apply the advanced knowledge and research skills
they gained in the classroom to improve higher education policy
and practice at the institutional or governmental level. They will
think critically about educational issues, reflect upon their practice,
and change their approaches based on their insights.
iii. Third, as mindful educators, doctoral candidates in Higher
Education Administration will develop the habits of mind to adopt
a critical eye toward ideas and actions, show curiosity and passion
about learning through inquiry, deal comfortably with ambiguity,
and act on the basis of initiative. They will also recognize the
wholeness and distinctiveness of others, and make meaning by
being open-minded and respectful of the diversity in their
professional lives. Finally, they will exhibit professional and ethical
behavior in their research.
4.
Programmatic Information:
a. Location(s) where degree is offered: Modesto Maidique Campus; courses
are also offered at the Pines Center but there is no guarantee that the full
program will be available at this location.
b. Delivery format(s): Face-to-face with some hybrid (a small portion of
courses are fully online).
c. Faculty/student ratio: 17:1. With four faculty members and a five-year
average of 68 students, the faculty-to-student ratio is about 17 to 1 at the
doctoral level, while carrying approximately 19 master’s students as well.
In comparison, Florida State University had 41 students in 2007-08 and 44
students in 2008-09 with five program faculty members.
d. Enrollment data: See chart below.
Fall
2004
Headcount
Ed.D. Higher
Education
70
Fall
2005
Fall
2006
67
69
Fall
2007
62
Fall
2008
53
Fall
2009
42
Fall
2010
36
e. Retention and graduation rates: Although there have been slight declines
in headcounts over the year due to halting admissions, in comparison to
Florida State University that graduated seven students in 2007-08 and two
students in 2008-09, the program has been successful in attracting
3
candidates. In addition, seventy-one percent of the students in this
program are graduating within seven years of admission. See charts
below for degrees awarded.
Degrees Awarded
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Ed.D. Higher Education
6
4
6
6
12
1
6
Total Graduates - Higher Education
2000-2001 to 2009-2010
Students
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
12
5
2
1
6
3
4
6
6
1
*2009 - 2010 data set incomplete including only summer & fall semester
Time to Degree for Graduates
16
14
12
10
8
Students
6
4
2
0
1 to 4
5
6
7
8
4
9
10 to Over 12
12
f. Placement of graduates: Most of our graduates are working full-time in
the field while pursuing their studies. Yet, many acquire a promotion
while in school or immediately after completion. More detailed data are
unavailable because of the lack of tracking alumni.
g. Percentage of graduates proceeding to graduate or professional schools:
Not applicable. The Ed.D. is a terminal degree.
h. Diversity profile of students: See chart below.
Diversity
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Total # of Students
70
67
69
62
53
42
36
American Indian
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Asian
1
3
2
2
1
0
0
Black
9
10
13
13
12
10
6
Hispanic
24
23
22
20
20
17
15
White
36
30
32
27
20
15
15
Multi-racial
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Not Specified
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
University Core Curriculum delivered (if applicable). – N/A
5.
Student learning outcomes matrix (i.e., student learning outcomes stated in
measurable terms; assessment methods [criteria and procedures for
evaluation]; results of data summary and analysis; and, use of results for
improving student learning) for the last two years (2008-09 and 2009-10). Use of
results could include, for example, curriculum reform.
a. Outcomes are measured at three specific points in the students’ academic
program.
i. First, stewardship of the discipline is measured at the end of their
studies via a comprehensive exam.
ii. Second, reflective inquiry is measured by the dissertation proposal.
iii. Last, mindful educator is measured by the score on the Responsible
Conduct of Research and by the final dissertation.
b. The Student Learning Outcomes for the last two years are attached.
6.
Program performance outcomes matrix (i.e., program outcomes stated in
measurable terms; assessment criteria and procedures for evaluation; results of
data summary and analysis; and, use of results for improving the program.)
a. The Program Learning Outcomes for the last two years are attached.
Provide focused synthesis and analysis of the above segments.
-
Six students completed comprehensive exams this year. Of these six students, all
but one received a rating of excellent (3.0), and one received a rating of slightly
5
less than excellent (2.88). Thus, 100 percent met our expectations. Eleven
students successfully defended their proposals. Of these 11 students, 10 attained
a perfect score of excellent and one attained an almost perfect score (2.75). Thus,
100 percent of our students attained our goal. Ten students successfully
defended their dissertations. Of these, six students attained a perfect score (3.0)
and four students did not attain 3.0; all students, however, achieved a score of 2.8
or better. Thus, 100 percent of our students met our goal. One hundred percent
of our students attained our goal of adequacy, but in actuality all students’
performance was far above adequate. The four students who did not attain a
rating of “excellent” still graduated. When these results are viewed in light of
the results for the proposals in outcome #2, we expect that our preparation of
students prior to defending their dissertation will likely result in even greater
numbers of students achieving maximum scores on this outcome in the future.
-
While the new program is more rigorous, students respond favorably when they
realize it will better prepare them to write their dissertations, which is the
greatest challenge of their doctoral work. Substantial progress has been made in
stabilizing the program and there is progress in reducing the time to degree
completion, yet further progress is needed. There is also room for growth in
raising the percentage of students who do complete the degree.
-
While the program has increased research funding from 0 to over $150,000 per
year, this is likely to be unsustainable. There is minimal funding available from
federal and other government sources for higher education research.
Competition for government and foundation support is challenging.
-
We are not getting a sufficient number of student addresses to invite them to
complete our alumni survey. The college was unable to provide these. Better
alumni tracking in the college would help our program assessment.
Contextual Program Information:
7.
List recommendations from the last program review and actions taken in
response to recommendations.
a. See Overview.
8.
Summarize results/recommendations of any specialized accreditation,
including date of review.
a. We do not have an outside accreditation agency specific to our program.
6
9.
Describe major changes in the Program as a result of changes in discipline,
student demand, faculty feedback and labor dynamics.
a. The program curriculum has undergone a major revision including
reducing the number of courses students can transfer in and increasing
the research course requirement. In order to keep the total number of
credits at a manageable level, dissertation credit requirements were
reduced. The program froze admissions for some time in order to better
serve the surplus of students in the doctoral program. Once enrollment
returned to a quality management level, admission to the program was
reopened. The program revision coincided with reopening admissions.
These changes were designed to address the following: reduce time to
degree, increase the quality of dissertations, and better prepare students to
write dissertations.
10. Demonstrate need for the Program and benefit to the University, region, State,
and global community, as applicable.
a. Nationally the employment outlook for higher education administrators
suggests modest growth, due in part to an expected hike in administrator
retirements in the coming years (Shults, 2001). According to the
Occupational Outlook Handbook, there is an expected 2 percent growth in
employment over the next years. South Florida includes Miami-Dade
College and Broward College which are making the transition from twoyear colleges to four-year. These colleges need the professional
development for their mid-level and higher staff to align with the new
standards for their institution and credentialing their staff.
Administrators from Broward College have informed program faculty of
their necessity to “grow their own” leaders rather than conducting
national searches. Similarly, this program provides professional
development for mid-level FIU staff who wish to advance at the
university. This helps FIU “grow its own” professional staff.
Fiscal Analysis:
11. The Fiscal Analysis will be enacted through a process between the Office of
Academic Budget and Personnel in the Division of Academic Affairs and the
dean of the College of Education.
Research Productivity (as applicable):
12a. Grant Support: Please analyze tenured and tenured-earning faculty
productivity in the last three years in terms of grant support, including the
following: number of proposals submitted; number of submitters; total funds
requested; average per proposal; number of proposals funded; and, total
7
amount funded. (Please provide the information by fiscal year.) You can also
provide the analysis on non-tenured and non-tenured earning faculty.
Analysis on clinical grants, as applicable, can be included.
Grant Activity
# of
Proposals
Submitted
# of
Submitters
Total
Funds
Requested
Average
Per
Proposals
# of
Proposals
Funded
Total
Amount
Funded
7
2
$2,090,507
$298,643
2
$505,835
Funded Research
2009
$496,600 over
36 months
2008
$9,235 for one
year
Musoba, G. D. Taking Stock and Moving Forward.
Lumina Foundation for Education. Principal
Investigator.
Musoba, G. D. Undocumented students’ understanding
of college access. ENLACE FLORIDA. Principal
Investigator.
Grants 2005-10
-
Musoba, G. D. (2006-07). Aspirations, Access and Challenges of Undocumented
Immigrants Pursuing Higher Education. Submitted for FIU Faculty Research
Award.
-
Musoba, G. D. (2009). Recovery Act Limited Competition: NIH Challenge Grants:
Inquiry Based Developmental Mathematics: Student outcomes of changing
faculty beliefs and pedagogical practices. $519,853. Principal Investigator.
-
Geertz Gonzalez, R. (2005-10). W.T. Grant Foundation. W.T. Grant Scholars
Program. A Five-Year Longitudinal Study of College Student Civic Development
at a Hispanic Serving Institution. $300,000.
-
Geertz Gonzalez, R. (Program Evaluator). Twigg, D. (PI/Project Director). (201213). U.S. Department of Education. Internationalization through Simulation.
$164,819.
-
Geertz Gonzalez, R. (Program Evaluator). Twigg, D. (PI/Project Director). (201013). Funding for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE).
Internationalization through Simulations. $600,000.
8
12b. Publications: Please provide the number of publications in peer reviewed
journals and/or student-run publications produced in the last three years,
including the number of papers per faculty. (Please provide the information by
fiscal year.)
Publication Contribution Per Faculty Member by Fiscal Year (2007-10)
Faculty
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Baez
2
5
6
0
13
Geertz González
0
3
0
2
5
Musoba
0
2
2
2
6
Publications not counted because Dr. Blanchard
Blanchard
just joined the program in Fall 2010.
*Some publications were co-authored by multiple faculty members.
Publications for 2007
-
Baez, B. (2007). Thinking critically about the “critical”: Quantitative research as
social critique. In F. K. Stage (Ed.), Using quantitative data to answer critical
questions. New directions for institutional research (pp. 17-23). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
-
Gasman, M., Baez, B., et al. (2007). AAUP report – “Historically black colleges and
universities: Recent trends.” Academe: Bulletin of the American Association of University
Professors, January/February 2007, 96(1), 67-77.
Publications for 2008
-
Baez, B. (2008). [Review of the book Multiversities, ideas, and democracy, by George
Fallis]. The Review of Higher Education, 31(4), 507-508.
-
Baez, B., & Talburt, S. (2008). Governing for responsibility and with love: Parents
and children between home and school. Educational Theory, 58(1), 25–43.
-
Baez, B., Gasman, M., & Turner, C. S. V. (2008). On minority institutions. In M.
Gasman, B. Baez, & C. Turner (Eds.), Understanding minority-serving institutions:
Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 3-17). New York: State University Press of New
York Press.
-
Esposito, J., & Baez, B. (2008). Queering the body: The politics of gaydar. In S.
Schramm-Pate & R. B. Jeffries (Eds.), Grappling with diversity: Readings on civil rights
pedagogy and critical multiculturalism (pp. 117-131). New York: State University of
New York Press.
9
-
Gasman, M., Baez, B., & Turner, C. (Eds.). (2008). Understanding minority-serving
institutions. State University of New York Press.
-
Geertz González, R. (2008). College student civic development and engagement at a
Hispanic serving institution. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 7(4), 287–300.
-
Geertz González, R. (2008). College student spirituality at a Hispanic serving
institution. Journal of College and Character, 9(4), 1–26.
-
Geertz González, R. (2008). From creation to cultural resistance and expansion:
Research on American Indian higher education. In B. Baez (Ed.), Higher education:
Handbook of theory and research, 23, 299-327.
-
Musoba, G. D. (2008). Writing across power lines: Authorship in scholarly
collaborations. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development,
22(3/4), 60-67. Invited paper for the Writers’ Forum.
-
Musoba, G. D., Gross, J. P. K., & Hossler, D. R. (2008). Confronting ambiguity,
anarchy, and crisis in institutional research: Using student unit record databases in
extra-institutional research. In R. K. Toutkoushian & T. R. Massa (Eds.), Conducting
institutional research in non-campus-based settings. New directions for institutional
research (pp. 95-116). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Publications for 2009
-
Baez, B. (2009). Goss v. board of education, Knoxville, Tennessee. In Kofi Lomotey
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of African American education. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
-
Baez, B. (Summer 2009). “Accreditation fatigue” (Faculty Forum). Academe: Bulletin
of the American association of university professors, May-June 2009, 95(3), 55.
-
Baez, B., & Boyles, D. R. (2009). The politics of inquiry: Education research and the
“culture of science.” State University of New York Press. [CHOICE Award Winner]
(Peer reviewed).
-
Musoba, G. D. (2009). [Review of the book State postsecondary education research: New
methods to inform policy and practice, by K. M. Shaw, & D. E. Heller (Eds.)]. Review of
Higher Education, 32(4), 548-549.
-
Musoba, G. D., & Baez, B. (2009). The cultural capital of “cultural capital”: An
economy of translations. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory
and research. New York: Agathon Press. (Peer reviewed).
10
-
Sun, J. C., & Baez, B. (2009). Intellectual property in the information age. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
-
VanderSchee, C., & Baez, B. (2009). HIV/AIDS education in schools: The
“unassembled” youth as a curricular project. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics
of Education, 30(1), 33-46.
Publications for 2010
-
Geertz González, R. (2010). Ethnic identity at a Hispanic serving institution. Journal
of Latinos and Education, 9, 4.
-
Geertz González, R., & Colangel, P. (2010). The development of indigenous higher
education: A comparative, historical analysis of Australia, Canada, New Zealand,
and the U.S., 1880-2005. Journal of American Indian Education, 29, 3.
-
Musoba, G. D. (in press). Accountability policies and readiness for college for
diverse students. Educational Policy. (Released online on April 14, 2010.
doi:10.1177/0895904810361721).
-
St. John, E. P., & Musoba, G. D. (2010). Pathways to academic success in higher
education: Expanding opportunity for underrepresented students. New York: Routledge.
(Peer Reviewed).
12c. Research Ranking: Please provide any ranking or notation obtained during the
last three years (as applicable).
a. N/A
Partnerships/Entrepreneurial Activities (as applicable):
13. Please analyze results of foundation and auxiliary entrepreneurial activities
(e.g., community engagement, conferences and workshops, technical
assistance, sponsorships/donor support, etc.) during the last three years,
detailing activities and amounts obtained (where appropriate) by fiscal year.
a. Benjamin Baez was the secretary for the Comparative and International
Education Society and chaired the Dissertation Award committee of the
Association for the Study of Higher Education. Glenda Musoba served on
the Program Sub-committee Co-chair for Public Policy of the annual
meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, 2008. The
grant from the Lumina Foundation has provided support for additional
conference presentations and collaboration with student services on
student success at FIU. Because higher education is the faculty’s area of
11
expertise, collaboration with K-12 schools is not as much of an area of
professional service as is collaboration with colleges and universities.
Part III: Strategic Planning and Improvement Action Plan
14. Develop a programmatic Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and
Challenges (SWOC) analysis. An SWOC analysis identifies an organization’s
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges. The SWOC includes
normally an assessment of the internal environment (strengths and
weaknesses) and an assessment of the external environment (opportunities and
challenges). SWOCs facilitate strategic planning. Moreover, SWOCs help to
understand the culture, facilitate decision-making, and may be used to assess
opportunities and identify factors leading to an organization’s critical success.
Strengths
-
The program has a strong alumni base in the employees of Miami-Dade
College, Broward College, the University of Miami and FIU. In addition the
program has graduates who have obtained employment in Illinois, California,
and Georgia.
-
The program caters to working professionals and there is flexibility in
scheduling for those working full-time.
-
Diversity of the students in the program and in their interactions with
undergraduates in their practicum experiences.
-
Job demand is solid with a slow growth trajectory for future employment.
-
Faculty are earning national recognition. For example, Baez’s book won two
awards, including the CHOICE Award.
-
Students see the program as flexible and convenient for working professionals.
-
Students report good peer support.
-
Program fulfills a market need in South Florida. The closest competing
program is at Florida Atlantic University.
-
FIU is a great training facility for future higher education professionals because
the future of higher education reflects FIU – diverse, urban, predominantly
commuter, first-generation, etc.
12
Weaknesses
-
With students who are full-time employed and part-time students, the program
needs to work harder to develop a scholarly community.
-
Faculty do not have graduate student support for their research and students
do not experience close mentoring because assistantships are minimally
available and most students are employed full-time.
-
The program has primarily a local draw for doctoral students. Students are
unwilling to relocate to Miami, primarily because of the lack of a Ph.D. option,
lack of a full-time student culture, lack of national reputation, and lack of
assistantships. Only 9-20 percent of applicants are out-of-state and virtually all
enrolled students are in-state.
-
Graduate students have lacked the academic writing skills to efficiently
produce a dissertation. The new curriculum and discontinuation of the cohort
format will help rectify this situation.
-
Students have lacked the research skills to independently design their
dissertation research. We believe the increased course requirements in research
will help with this problem, but the coursework may require further
examination.
-
Doctoral students who conducted coursework as part of the cohort program at
the Pines campus lacked the opportunity to develop relationships with anyone
except the core program faculty, making it difficult for the students to form
dissertation committees consisting of people they knew. This was one of the
key reasons for discontinuing the weekend cohort format.
Opportunities
-
Ongoing need for the program from the local market. Growth in demand may
be possible with Miami Dade and Broward Colleges making the transition to
bachelor’s granting institutions.
-
Good working relationship between the program and the local colleges.
-
Alumni in leadership roles in local colleges.
-
Student interest would grow if the program offered a Ph.D.
13
-
Getting more doctoral students involved in national presentations and
publishing. Since students have been publishing their dissertations, our alumni
could be some of our best representatives.
Challenges
-
Ongoing fiscal challenges in the state may lead to future budget cuts.
15. Refer to issues still identified as challenges and/or opportunities and prepare a
plan to suggest solutions and pathways towards furthering student learning
and programmatic improvements. Include a timetable and denote process for
developing consensus on the Improvement Action Plan. Within the
Improvement Action Plan, please incorporate a plan to measure
progress/indicators of success.
Place the formulation of the Improvement Action Plan within the context of
your unit’s ongoing strategic planning.
Challenges/
Opportunities
Creating a more robust
scholarly community
with part-time students
who have full-time jobs.
Enrolling high quality,
diverse students.
Timetable
Promote involvement in
the College’s Research
Conference and
collaborative
presentations between
faculty and students.
During the 2011-12
school year, doctoral
students will be
encouraged to submit
conference proposals
from papers developed
in class.
Develop more scholarly
discussion opportunities
in the college for
students to engage in
intellectual discourse
with students in and
outside the program.
Increase program
recruitment at open
14
Indicators of Success
In the next academic year,
four students would have
presented research at a
local, regional, or national
conference.
College will host two guest
lecturers or discussions for
graduate students in the
next year.
The percentage of students
who finish the program
houses and attending
professional
development events at
local colleges to recruit
prospective students. A
broader applicant pool
will allow the program to
be more selective.
During the spring 2011
and fall 2011 semesters,
the faculty will contact
two of the MDC
campuses, one BC
campus, and the FIU
student affairs
department to host open
houses or other events to
promote the program
among the employees of
these institutions.
will rise because they are
better prepared to be
successful. Acknowledging
all the weaknesses in the
GRE as a predictive tool,
average admissions GRE
score will continue to rise
while maintaining the
diversity of the program’s
enrollment.
Part IV: Recommendations of Provost
The Provost will provide written recommendations to the units regarding the future
direction of the academic program based on the findings of the complete Program
Review, including the self-study, external consultant’s feedback and Improvement
Action Plan.
15