Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport
ISSN: 0270-1367 (Print) 2168-3824 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20
PETE Doctoral Institutions: Programs, Faculty, and Doctoral Students B. Ann Boyce, Jacalyn Lund & Kason O'Neil To cite this article: B. Ann Boyce, Jacalyn Lund & Kason O'Neil (2015) PETE Doctoral Institutions: Programs, Faculty, and Doctoral Students, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 86:3, 311-318, DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2015.1041634 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2015.1041634
Published online: 26 Jun 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 44
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=urqe20 Download by: [University of Sussex Library]
Date: 07 October 2015, At: 18:12
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 86, 311–318, 2015 Copyright q SHAPE America ISSN 0270-1367 print/ISSN 2168-3824 online DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2015.1041634
PETE Doctoral Institutions: Programs, Faculty, and Doctoral Students B. Ann Boyce University of Virginia
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 18:12 07 October 2015
Jacalyn Lund Georgia State University
Kason O’Neil East Tennessee State University
Purpose: The present study of doctoral physical education teacher education (D-PETE) programs was part of a longitudinal study that provided an extensive description of demographics including: (a) doctoral program characteristics, (b) faculty, and (c) doctoral students/graduates. Method: This trend study incorporated 3 data sets (2005–2006, 2008– 2009, and 2011–2012) that described the characteristics of D-PETE programs. Academic heads of D-PETE programs provided demographic information on their doctoral students, faculty, and institutional characteristics for the 2005–2006, 2008–2009, and 2011–2012 academic years and selected summary data from 1996–1997 through 2011–2012. Results/Conclusion: As a result of this longitudinal data collection, the following trends were revealed. First, there was a decrease in the number of D-PETE programs and an increase of nontenured and part-time pedagogy faculty. Second, initial teacher licensure programs remained in existence at the vast majority of D-PETE programs. Third, funding for doctoral students at D-PETE programs was decreasing. Fourth, racial composition of doctoral graduates and current doctoral students remained largely skewed toward Caucasians. Fifth, there was a slight decline in the percentage of doctoral graduates entering higher education, but employment rates were exceptionally high. Sixth, non-U.S. doctoral students and ABDs were marketable in the United States. Keywords: doctoral faculty, doctoral shortage, graduate students, physical education teacher education
In a large-scale study, Golde and Dore (2001) explored the demographic characteristics of doctoral students at doctorate-granting institutions (DGIs) in the arts and sciences. These researchers described characteristics of doctoral students related to their perceptions of their own doctoral student training experiences and career paths. Building on earlier work, Walker, Golde, Jones, Buecshel, and Hutchings (2008) at the Carnegie Foundation studied Ph.D. programs and expanded the previous work to include faculty perceptions. In kinesiology, Woods, Goc Karp, and Feltz Submitted April 8, 2014; accepted March 8, 2015. Correspondence should be addressed to B. Ann Boyce, Department of Kinesiology, University of Virginia, 210 Emmet Street South, P.O. Box 400407, Charlottesville, VA 22904. E-mail: [email protected]
(2003) reported that only 10.3% of doctoral students were specializing in pedagogy as compared with doctoral students in other disciplines. Similar to the early Golde and Dore study, the Woods et al. study did not address DGIs’ programs and faculty. In 2009, Parker, Sinclair, Sutherland, and Ward surveyed doctoral physical education teacher education (D-PETE) programs and reported on core curriculum requirements, numbers of D-PETE programs, program focus, and type and scope of research classes. These researchers found: (a) a loose admission requirement for PK – 12 teaching experience, (b) 23 operational D-PETE programs, and (c) a variety of program foci and research requirements. Most recently, a Journal of Teaching in Physical Education special issue (Rikard & Boyce, 2011)
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 18:12 07 October 2015
312
B. A. BOYCE ET AL.
addressed D-PETE programs from a multifaceted approach. From previous examinations, it was posed that little is known about trends related to the training and experiences of doctoral students and the extent to which the needs of PK – 12 and higher education are met. This trend study presented three rounds of data collection (2005 –2006, 2008 – 2009, and 2011 –2012) related to the characteristics of D-PETE programs. More specially, this extensive demographic description of D-PETE programs included characteristics of programs, faculty, and doctoral students. Using two previous databases (Boyce & Rikard, 2006, 2011) combined with the most recent data set, it was the intent of this study to discuss comparisons and the emergence of trends related to D-PETE programs, faculty, and doctoral students. The benefits of longitudinal data collection can serve to either observe trend changes or support existing trends over time. A cross-sectional study would not yield the information needed to answer questions related to trends of D-PETE programs. The present study added a third round of data (2011 – 2012) to the database, which now reflects 16 years of data and continues to focus on three research questions (RQs): (1) What are the characteristics of D-PETE programs in the United States? (2) What are the characteristics of the D-PETE faculty in DGIs in the United States? (3) What are the characteristics of D-PETE graduates in the United States? The present study used a commonly applied descriptive analytic policy-related research framework (e.g., Felbinger, Holzer, & White, 1999; Golde, 2006) to address specific characteristics of D-PETE programs. Descriptive information was systematically collected via e-mail from department heads for D-PETE programs. This research did not test constructs but simply described the demographics of D-PETE programs. Because few large-scale studies exist in D-PETE literature, comparisons were drawn from policyrelated research completed in other discipline areas—most notably from the arts and sciences arena.
METHODS Participants Twenty-seven academics serving as heads of D-PETE programs were invited to provide information on their doctoral students, faculty, and institutions for the 2005 – 2006, 2008 – 2009, and 2011 – 2012 academic years. Permission from the institutional review board was obtained from all participants during the three data collection periods. There were 27 respondents for the 2011 –2012 and 2008 –2009 data collection periods and 26 respondents for
2005– 2006 data collection period. These academic heads answered questions related to their respective faculties. Overall percent averages/SDs are presented: (a) gender, 52% (SD ¼ 5.3) female and 48% (SD ¼ 5.3) male; (b) rank, 26% (SD ¼ 1.0) professor, 29% (SD ¼ 4.0) associate professor, 23.5% (SD ¼ 6.9) assistant professor, and 21.5% (SD ¼ 8.2) lecturer/clinical instructor (L/CI); (c) ethnicity, 88.36% (SD ¼ 3.1) Caucasian, 5.5% (SD ¼ 0.9) African American, 3.8% (SD ¼ 1.6) Asian, 2% (SD ¼ 2) Hispanic, and 0.34% (SD ¼ 0.6) Biracial; and (d) academic heads averaged 14 years of service (SD ¼ 1.0) with a range of 13 years to 15 years of service at their present institution. By agreeing to fill out the questionnaire, participants supplied their informed consent. Instrument Employed To address the three RQs, the Doctoral Pedagogy Questionnaire (DPQ), constructed for the 2005 – 2006 study, was used. The DPQ was developed from two sources: (a) discussions with professionals representing the National Association for Sport and Physical Education, graduate coordinators, and other PETE faculty; and (b) a review of previous surveys in kinesiology (Woods et al., 2003) and general education (Golde & Dore, 2001). Items on the DPQ were directly aligned with content addressed in the RQs. The original DPQ (2005 –2006) was composed of 21 items plus faculty demographics. This instrument requested information in the following general areas: (a) 2 questions on initial teacher licensure program(s) (ITL), (b) 2 questions on the existence of D-PETE programs, (c) 6 questions on information on doctoral graduates, (d) 6 questions on information on ABD students, (e) 3 questions on funding of current doctoral students, and (f) 2 questions on plans for retirement of faculty members within the next 5 years (Boyce & Rikard, 2006). For the 2008 – 2009 study, the DPQ was revised to include two additional items related to faculty employment status (full-time [FT] or part-time [PT]) and ethnicity of the doctoral students (Boyce & Rikard, 2011). This revised DPQ (2008 – 2009) was also used for the 2011– 2012 study. Instrument Validity and Objectivity A jury of experts (PETE professionals and four graduate coordinators of D-PETE programs) was used to evaluate the original DPQ (Boyce & Rikard, 2006). Content validity of the DPQ was established by directly aligning content covered in DPQ items with descriptions of D-PETE programs. Minor revisions that did not impact content validity were made to 2011 – 2012 DPQ instruments based on suggestions from D-PETE faculty members. For all three studies, one researcher compiled the data on an Excel spreadsheet using the raw data from DPQ forms; data
CHARACTERISTICS OF PETE DOCTORAL INSTITUTIONS
entries were cross-checked independently by the researchers using the same DPQ forms, thus establishing objectivity of the data set. This process was repeated until 100% agreement was achieved, thus establishing accuracy of the coded data set. A few errors were identified using this procedure; when differences occurred, the raw sheets were compared to the Excel data sheets and the differences were resolved.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 18:12 07 October 2015
Data Collection and Analysis This trend study presented three rounds of data collection (2005 – 2006, 2008 – 2009, and 2011 – 2012), and it addressed the three RQs. Comparisons across the 3 academic years (2005 – 2006 vs. 2008 – 2009 vs. 2011 – 2012) were made on variables related to doctoral-level programs, faculty, and doctoral graduates. Additionally, historical recall data provided by academic heads of DGIs that focused on the production of doctoral-level candidates and their position placements from the 16 academic years (1996 –1997 through 2011 – 2012) was examined. Future studies should focus on the same RQs and follow the same protocol. RQ1 addressed information from D-PETE programs; data were gathered on the following institutional characteristics: (a) number of programs including existing, new, discontinued/on-hold, reinstated, and newly developed programs; (b) ITL programs at these universities; and (c) perceptions’ on doctoral student funding. RQ2 addressed information on the pedagogy faculty at the D-PETE programs; data were gathered on the following characteristics of faculty members: (a) number of PETE faculty in the institutions, (b) academic rank, (c) ethnicity, (d) gender, (e) gender by rank, and (f) number of D-PETE faculty who planned to retire within 5 years. RQ1 and RQ2 utilized the 3 academic year comparisons. RQ3 addressed information on the doctoral graduates; data were gathered on the following characteristics: (a) traits of doctoral students (e.g., earned doctorates, non-U.S. citizens, etc.) across the academic years; (b) annual graduation rates, if applicable; (c) employment success rates; and (d) the types of positions assumed by these students (e.g., higher education [HE]-PETE positions, supervisory roles, and other positions); and (e) ethnicity. Information on the doctoral graduates (including non-U.S. citizens) was described using the 16-academic year data set. Descriptive data were used to determine frequency counts and percentages for categories within each RQ.
RESULTS Longitudinal comparisons of the data related to institutional and faculty members’ characteristics were drawn from: (a) an unpublished data set for 2005– 2006 (Boyce & Rikard,
313
2006); (b) Boyce and Rikard (2011) for the 2008 – 2009 data set; and (c) the 2011– 2012 new data set. Data related to the doctoral graduate characteristics were taken from two published data sets (Boyce & Rikard, 2008, 2011) and the new data set. RQ1: Characteristics of D-PETE Programs The characteristics of the D-PETE programs that were examined included: (a) number of programs, (b) presence of ITL programs, and (c) funding for doctoral PETE students. Number of D-PETE Programs Of the participating institutions, most had a long history of graduating PETE professionals at the doctoral level (contact principal investigator for a list of the participating institutions and their statuses). Comparison across the three data collection cycles revealed a slight downward trend in the number of existing D-PETE programs from 25 in 2005– 2006 to 24 in 2008 – 2009 to 23 in 2011– 2012. Presence of Initial Teacher Licensure Programs at D-PETE Ninety-three percent of the 2005 –2006 programs had ITL compared with 96% of the 2008– 2009 and 2011– 2012 programs. Types of ITL programs included undergraduate programs, graduate programs, and 5-year programs. All but one existing D-PETE program had some form of ITL. Funding for Doctoral Students at D-PETE A review of the three data collection cycles (2005 – 2006, 2008– 2009, and 2011 – 2012) revealed similar trends when comparing the percent of doctoral students funded at DPETE programs with an overall percent average of 87%. While the number of doctoral students increased across the 3 academic years, the percentage of students receiving full funding dropped from 81% in 2005 –2006 to 65% in 2011– 2012. Additionally, the percentage of currently funded (including both full and partial funding) doctoral students decreased over time from 89% in 2005– 2006 to 85% in 2011– 2012. The academic heads at the D-PETE institutions were also asked to rate their perceptions of doctoral funding compared to other academic units in their universities. Perceived responses revealed a reduction in funding levels from 86% (in “comparable” and “above comparable” categories) in 2005 – 2006 to 70.5% in 2011– 2012. RQ2: Characteristics of PETE Faculty at DGIs Information on the pedagogy faculty members at the DPETE programs was gathered on the following characteristics: (a) number of D-PETE faculty members, (b)
314
B. A. BOYCE ET AL.
academic rank, (c) ethnicity, (d) gender, (e) gender by rank, and (f) plans to retire within 5 years.
employment success rates, (b) types of positions assumed by these graduates, (c) breakdown of non-U.S. graduates, and (d) doctoral student ethnicity.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 18:12 07 October 2015
Number of Faculty Across D-PETE Programs In 2005– 2006, there were 90 D-PETE faculty members across the 27 programs (range ¼ 1 – 7, M ¼ 3.33, SD ¼ 2.11). In 2008 – 2009, there were 114 D-PETE faculty members (range ¼ 1– 9, M ¼ 4.22, SD ¼ 2.14). In 2011 – 2012, 112 D-PETE faculty members were employed (range ¼ 1 –9, M ¼ 4.15, SD ¼ 2.03). The 2008 – 2009 and 2011 – 2012 data reflected both PT and FT appointments, whereas the 2005 – 2006 survey did not include data on PT faculty. The inclusion of PT and FT appointments may have contributed to the increase in faculty positions between the first data set and the later two data sets. The number of PT faculty accounted for 9% of the population in 2008 – 2009 and 11.6% in 2011– 2012.
Graduation and Employment Success Rates (1996– 1997 Through 2011 –2012) The overall mean was 37.4 (SD ¼ 4.81) graduates per year, which was fairly stable. In addition, an examination of the number of doctoral graduates generated during the earliest 5 years (1996 – 1997 through 2000 –2001) compared to the most recent 5 years (2007 – 2008 through 2011– 2012) revealed an increase over time. Specifically, the mean for production of new graduates from 1996– 1997 through 2000– 2001 was 33.8 (SD ¼ 3.19) compared with a mean of 40.2 (SD ¼ 4.02) in 2007 –2008 through 2011– 2012. The total number of doctoral graduates across the 16 academic years was 598. Of the total of 598 graduates, all but 3 gained employment, a success rate of 99.5%.
Academic Ranks of Faculty in D-PETE Programs The percentages of faculty members across academic ranks from 2005 –2006 to 2008 –2009 were relatively similar. The largest difference occurred in the L/CI rank (14% in 2005 – 2006 vs. 19% in 2008 –2009 vs. 30% in 2011– 2012). In 2011 – 2012, the L/CI increased (30%) while the percentage of assistant professors decreased (15%).
Types of Positions Assumed by Graduates (1996 – 1997 Through 2011 – 2012) Student placements related to types of employment were: (a) 87% found positions in institutions of HE; (b) 4% assumed roles as city/county/district supervisors in PK –12 settings; and (c) 9% secured other types of employment, taught in the PK –12 schools, or sought additional education.
Ethnicity and Gender of D-PETE Faculty Although PETE faculty members in the DGIs lack diversity, the percentage of Non-Caucasian faculty members increased from 9% in 2005 –2006 to 11% in 2008 – 2009 and 15% in 2011– 2012. Relative to gender, there was a fairly even split across all 3 academic years. Gender and Academic Rank In 2011– 2012 a comparison was made between rank and gender. Full professors were more likely to be male (66%) than female (34%), but adjuncts/L/CIs were less likely to be male (32%) than female (68%). Retirement Plans for PETE Faculty Members in DGIs The current PETE faculty members’ plans for retirement offered one indicator of possible hiring needs in D-PETE programs in the near future. The percentage of faculty planning to retire remained virtually unchanged in 2005 – 2006 (11.5%) and 2008 – 2009 (11.4%) with a slight increase in retirement plans in 2011 –2012 (15%). RQ3: Characteristics of D-PETE Graduates Information on D-PETE program graduates was gathered on the following characteristics: (a) graduation numbers and
Breakdown of Non-U.S. Graduates (1996 – 1997 Through 2011 – 2012) The total number of non-U.S. doctoral graduates across the 16 academic years was 143, with an overall mean of 8.94 (SD ¼ 2.79) students per year. The non-U.S. graduates represented 24% of the total doctoral graduate population. This percentage remained fairly stable over time. All but 1 non-U.S. doctoral graduate gained employment; 68% did so in the United States. ABDs (All But Dissertation) or Less From 2005– 2006 through 2011 – 2012, 93 ABD or less than ABD sought employment prior to finishing their degrees. The average number per year was 13.3 and 69% of these individuals gained employment in HE with the remainder either taking positions in supervision or K – 12 teaching (6%) or going to other types of positions (25%). Ethnicity of Doctoral Graduates (2005 – 2006, 2008 – 2009, and 2011 – 2012) The overall breakdown of the D-PETE program students was as follows: (a) 63% were Caucasians from the United States, (b) 14% were Non-Caucasians from the United States, (c) 8% were non-U.S. Caucasians, and (d) 11% represented non-U.S. Non-Caucasians. Of these graduates, only 25%
Supporting Evidence (SE) for Trends
1) The percentage of students receiving full funding dropped from 81% in 2005–2006 to 65% in 2011–2012. 2) The percentage of currently funded (FT or PT) doctoral students decreased from 89% in 2005–2006 to 85% in 2011–2012. 3) Academic heads at DGIs rated their perceptions of doctoral funding compared to other academic units in their universities. Perceived responses revealed a reduction in funding levels from 86% (in “comparable” and “above comparable” categories) in 2005–2006 to 70.5% in 2011–2012. 1) A small increase in the D-PETE faculty percentages of African American, Asian, and Hispanic populations was observed in the 2011–2012 data set. 2) Doctoral graduates were more diverse (25% Non-Caucasian) than D-PETE faculty (15% Non-Caucasian in 2011–2012), which should translate into an increase in diversity with future professionals.
Trend 3: Funding for doctoral students at D-PETE
Trend 4: Lack of diversity among faculty and doctoral students
(continued)
Ostriker, Holland, Kuh, and Voytuk (2010) also reported lower diversity percentages for DGI faculty (29%) and their respective doctoral students (37%). (PL)
The strategy of recruiting foreign students to increase diversity was reflected in the work of Walker et al. (2008). (PL)
SE #2: Much of the diversity was provided through the recruitment of non-U.S. graduates. (O)
Because all but one D-PETE program has ITL, doctoral students have the opportunity to supplement research funding with teaching assistantships. (O) The challenge of obtaining external funding for graduate student support has been an ongoing issue for DGIs across academia (Norris, 2011). (PL)
There was an increase in the percentage of ITL programs at DGIs: While doctoral students must be trained in the area of scholarship, 93% in 2005–2006 programs compared with 96% in the 2008– they should also be trained to teach and supervise field practica, 2009 and 2011–2012 programs. thus mentoring them for future roles in the professoriate. (O)
SE #1: The decrease in the number of PETE undergraduate and graduate programs (Newell, 1990, 2007) was coupled with the decrease in the size of some PETE programs (Solmon & Garn, 2014). (PL) SE #3: Kent (2012) noted a 5% increase in the number of first-time doctoral students entering in 2012 across all doctoral programs. (PL) SE #4: Curtis (2005) reported a hiring increase of PT faculty across all doctoral programs in the previous decade and the subsequent negative effect of this action on decreasing employment of FT, tenure-track faculty. The hiring of PT faculty is often viewed as more advantageous by money-conscious administrators because PT faculty work for lower salaries and receive fewer or no benefits (Johnson & McCarthy, 2000; Schrecker, 2010). Golde and Dore (2001) reported 43% of faculty members in the arts and sciences held PT faculty appointments, whereas the percentage of PT faculty in D-PETE was much less (13%). (PL & O)
Parallel Literature (PL)/ Observations (O)
Trend 2: Use of ITL programs to educate doctoral students
Trend 1: Reduction in D-PETE programs with corresponding 1) Number of D-PETE programs decreased slightly from 25 in changes in graduates entering HE and types of positions hired at 2005–2006 to 23 in 2011–2012. DGIs 2) There was a decrease in the percentage of doctoral students entering HE: 78% in 2011–12 compared with the overall average of 87% across the 16-year cycle. 3) Number of D-PETE graduates has slowly increased over time. 4) The hiring trend reflects an increase in nontenured positions (lecturer/CI/adjunct) from 14% in 2005–2006 to 30% in 2011– 2012 and an increase in the hiring of PT faculty from 10% in 2008– 2009 to 13% in 2011–2012.
Trend
TABLE 1 Trends Related to the Combined Data Sets
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 18:12 07 October 2015
CHARACTERISTICS OF PETE DOCTORAL INSTITUTIONS
315
1) A high percentage (68%) of non-U.S. doctorates found employment in the United States. The number of non-U.S. doctoral graduates averaged 8.9 graduates per year (across the 16academic year cycle). 2) All but one of these individuals found employment either in the United States or abroad. 3) Across the 16-year data set, an average of 23.44% (SD ¼ 6.57%) of D-PETE doctoral students came from outside of the United States.
All ABDs or less who sought employment gained employment with The employment rate for ABDs or less (100%) was considerably the majority of them (69%) successfully attaining positions in HE. greater compared with those in the arts and sciences (54%; Ostriker et al., 2010). (PL)
Trend 6: Employment of non-U.S. doctorates
Trend 7: Employment of ABDs or less
Note. D-PETE ¼ doctoral physical education teacher education; DGI ¼ doctorate-granting institution; HE ¼ higher education; CI ¼ clinical instructor; PT ¼ part-time; FT ¼ full-time; ITL ¼ initial teacher licensure.
SE #3: Redden (2013) reported a dependence of U.S. graduate programs on foreign students; D-PETE programs have been operating this way for some time as indicated by the fairly stable numbers during a 16-year time frame. (PL)
SE #1: According to Golde and Dore (2001), 69% of graduates in the arts and sciences enter HE compared with 87% in D-PETE. (PL) SE #3: The employment rate among PETE doctoral students (99.5%) was considerably greater compared with that of arts and sciences students (54%; Ostriker et al., 2010). (PL) For-profit institutions are now offering online terminal degrees and several institutions have programs in curriculum and instruction rather than D-PETE programs. Hiring practices of universities should be monitored to see if the universities believe that candidates from these non D-PETE programs are considered satisfactory. (O)
1) A high overall average percentage (87%) of doctoral graduates enter HE positions. This 87% translates into an average 32.5 PETE faculty members a year entering HE. 2) A 9% decline in PETE doctorates entering HE was noted in 2011–2012 compared with the 16-year average. 3) A high employment rate in PETE doctoral students (99.5%) was observed.
Trend 5: Pedagogy doctorates enter HE & employment rates
Parallel Literature (PL)/ Observations (O)
Supporting Evidence (SE) for Trends
Trend
TABLE 1 – (Continued)
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 18:12 07 October 2015
316 B. A. BOYCE ET AL.
CHARACTERISTICS OF PETE DOCTORAL INSTITUTIONS
were Non-Caucasians regardless of country of origin. The percentage of U.S. Caucasians dropped slightly from 67% in 2005 –2006 to 60% in 2011 – 2012. However, the percentage of Non-Caucasians held steady at around 25%.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 18:12 07 October 2015
DISCUSSION The present research was descriptive analytic in nature and focused on characteristics of D-PETE programs, students, and faculty. As a part of this discussion, trends were identified based on findings across the three data sets. Table 1 outlines seven trends along with supporting evidence from this article, parallel literature findings, and observations. As a result of the trends outlined in Table 1, the following recommendations are made by the authors: . Programs must look past the possible short-term
financial benefits of hiring PT faculty and consider the long-term impact of these decisions on the overall health of the PETE profession; FT and tenure-track (TT) faculty members should be hired (Curtis, 2005). The decrease in the number of D-PETE programs and graduates entering HE should be reversed as continuing this trend represents a harbinger of bad news for pedagogy at Research I intensive and extensive universities and the profession as a whole in terms of quality of research and instruction. A strategy for accomplishing more TT positions, PETE faculty members must be more vocal and argue for more TT positions, as this impacts stability, research productivity, and program quality. . Based on the crucial function that ITL programs play in the training of future pedagogists, it is recommended that PETE programs maintain ITL programs. Aligning doctoral training through the apprenticeship model (Metzler, 1999) would be one way to solidify this link between PETE and D-PETE. From an ecological standpoint, D-PETE programs, PETE programs, and PK –12 physical education are all interdependently linked and the health of one unit is interconnected with the health of all (van der Mars, 2011). . Funding for doctoral student support in pedagogy must be pursued. Doctoral students should be FT students as students who complete the degree as PT students while having FT jobs do not experience the full benefit of focusing only on research and study during the doctoral experience. Additional funding may also prevent candidates from leaving the university prior to completing their degrees (e.g., ABD) to secure employment (Boyce & Rikard, 2011). Obtaining funding sources, although difficult, may be accomplished through interdisciplinary collaboration efforts especially through science, technology, engineering
317
and math (STEM) efforts (Ward et al., 2011). Some DGIs have developed special funds for those academic units with fewer funding capabilities and have tapped into university fellowships and awards. . In light of the changing ethnic diversity in our general population, efforts to recruit and graduate NonCaucasians into the professorial ranks should be strengthened. Possible strategies include: (a) recruiting among our own students, and (b) developing relationships with traditional minority colleges and universities. . Programs need to develop a pipeline for recruiting teachers from PK – 12 U.S. schools into doctoral programs. Programs need to involve undergraduates and master’s students in research projects to make them aware of the potential to do research and to prepare them to pursue the doctoral degree and enter HE. If doctoral programs continue to recruit non-U.S. individuals, they need to give foreign students experience in U.S. schools as often, their experience in PK –12 education is very different than in their own countries. For example, at The Ohio State University, doctoral students work in public schools in semesterlong practica to help them gain experience in PK – 12 teaching. . We recommend that doctoral students complete their education before securing positions in HE. The increasing trend of the hiring of ABDs deserves further examination about whether they finish the degree, the types of positions they take, and whether they are successful in their jobs.
WHAT DOES THIS ARTICLE ADD? The present study on D-PETE programs was part of a trend study providing an extensive description of demographics about the following topics: (a) doctoral program characteristics, (b) faculty, and (c) doctoral students/graduates. Using previous data sets from the academic years of 2005– 2006 and 2008 – 2009 as well as selected summary data from 1996– 1997 through 2008 –2009 and adding the most recent data from 2011 –2012, several trends were identified. First, there was a decrease in the number of D-PETE programs and an increase of nontenured and PT pedagogy faculty. Second, ITL programs remained in existence at the vast majority of DGIs. Third, funding of D-PETE students at DGIs was decreasing. Fourth, racial composition of DPETE graduates and current doctoral students remained largely skewed toward Caucasians. Fifth, there was a slight decline in the percentage of D-PETE students entering HE, but the job market remained strong for graduates. Sixth, non-U.S. D-PETE students and ABDs were marketable in the United States. It is vital for any discipline area to
318
B. A. BOYCE ET AL.
examine changes within the field related to doctoral preparation to more fully understand where the field is headed. This current study is the only comprehensive trend research study to examine these issues in D-PETE.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 18:12 07 October 2015
REFERENCES Boyce, B. A., & Rikard, G. L. (2006). [Characteristics of faculty and doctoral granting institutions—2005–6 through 1996–97]. Unpublished raw data. Boyce, B. A., & Rikard, G. L. (2008). A comparison of supply and demand for PETE faculty: The changing landscape. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79, 540– 545. Boyce, B. A., & Rikard, G. L. (2011). Characteristics of PETE doctoral level institutions: Descriptions of programs, faculty and doctoral students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 30, 103–115. Curtis, J. W. (Ed.). (2005). Trends in faculty status, 1975–2003. Unpublished data, American Association of University Professors, Washington, DC. Felbinger, C. L., Holzer, M., & White, J. D. (1999). The doctorate in public administration: Some unresolved questions and recommendations. Public Administration Review, 59, 459–464. Golde, C. M. (2006). Preparing stewards of the discipline. In C. M. Golde & G. E. Walker (Eds.), Envisioning the future of doctoral education. Stanford, CA: Jossey-Bass. Golde, C. M., & Dore, T. M. (2001). At cross purposes: What the experiences of doctoral students reveal about doctoral education. Philadelphia, PA: Pew Charitable Trusts. Johnson, B., & McCarthy, T. (2000). Casual labor and the future of the academy. Thought & Action, 16(1), 107– 114. Kent, J. (2012). U.S. graduate schools report slight growth in new students for fall 2012. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. Retrieved from http://www.cgsnet.org/us-graduate-school-growth-new-studentsfall-2012 Metzler, M. (1999, January). Preparing professors of physical education and the sport sciences for the new university: The apprentice scholar model. Paper presented at the National Association for Physical Education in Higher Education Conference, San Diego, CA.
Newell, K. M. (1990). Physical education in higher education. Quest, 42, 269–278. Newell, K. M. (2007). Kinesiology: Challenges of multiple agendas. Quest, 59, 5 –24. Norris, J. (2011, November/December). The crisis in extramural funding. Academe, 97(6). Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/article/crisisextramural-funding Ostriker, J. P., Holland, P. W., Kuh, C. V., & Voytuk, J. A. (Eds.). (2010). A data-based assessment of research-doctorate programs in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/Resdoc Parker, M., Sinclair, C., Sutherland, S., & Ward, P. (2009). A survey of physical education teacher education doctoral programs [Abstract]. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 80(Suppl. 1), A69. Redden, E. (2013, July 12). Foreign student dependence. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/07/12/newreport-shows-dependence-us-graduate-programs-foreign-students Rikard, G. L., & Boyce, B. A. (Eds.). (2011). A multifaceted examination of the status of PETE doctoral education in the U.S. [Special issue]. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 30(2). Schrecker, E. (2010). The lost soul of higher education: Corporatization, the assault on academic freedom, and the end of the American university. New York, NY: New Press. Solmon, M. A., & Garn, A. C. (2014). Effective teaching in physical education: Using transportation metaphors to assess our status and drive our future. Research Quarterly in Exercise and Sport, 85, 20 – 26. van der Mars, H. (2011). Reflecting on the state of U.S. doctoral PETE programs . . . ‘Houston we have a problem.’ Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 30, 189–208. Walker, G. E., Golde, C. M., Jones, L., Buecshel, A. C., & Hutchings, P. (2008). The formation of scholars: Rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first century. Stanford, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ward, P., Sutherland, S., Woods, M., Boyce, B. A., Goc Karp, G., . . . Sinclair, C. (2011). The doctorate in physical education teacher education in the 21st century: Contexts and changes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 30, 178 –188. Woods, M. L., Goc Karp, G., & Feltz, D. (2003). Positions in kinesiology and physical education at the college or university level. Quest, 55, 30–50.
ISSN: 0270-1367 (Print) 2168-3824 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20
PETE Doctoral Institutions: Programs, Faculty, and Doctoral Students B. Ann Boyce, Jacalyn Lund & Kason O'Neil To cite this article: B. Ann Boyce, Jacalyn Lund & Kason O'Neil (2015) PETE Doctoral Institutions: Programs, Faculty, and Doctoral Students, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 86:3, 311-318, DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2015.1041634 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2015.1041634
Published online: 26 Jun 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 44
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=urqe20 Download by: [University of Sussex Library]
Date: 07 October 2015, At: 18:12
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 86, 311–318, 2015 Copyright q SHAPE America ISSN 0270-1367 print/ISSN 2168-3824 online DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2015.1041634
PETE Doctoral Institutions: Programs, Faculty, and Doctoral Students B. Ann Boyce University of Virginia
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 18:12 07 October 2015
Jacalyn Lund Georgia State University
Kason O’Neil East Tennessee State University
Purpose: The present study of doctoral physical education teacher education (D-PETE) programs was part of a longitudinal study that provided an extensive description of demographics including: (a) doctoral program characteristics, (b) faculty, and (c) doctoral students/graduates. Method: This trend study incorporated 3 data sets (2005–2006, 2008– 2009, and 2011–2012) that described the characteristics of D-PETE programs. Academic heads of D-PETE programs provided demographic information on their doctoral students, faculty, and institutional characteristics for the 2005–2006, 2008–2009, and 2011–2012 academic years and selected summary data from 1996–1997 through 2011–2012. Results/Conclusion: As a result of this longitudinal data collection, the following trends were revealed. First, there was a decrease in the number of D-PETE programs and an increase of nontenured and part-time pedagogy faculty. Second, initial teacher licensure programs remained in existence at the vast majority of D-PETE programs. Third, funding for doctoral students at D-PETE programs was decreasing. Fourth, racial composition of doctoral graduates and current doctoral students remained largely skewed toward Caucasians. Fifth, there was a slight decline in the percentage of doctoral graduates entering higher education, but employment rates were exceptionally high. Sixth, non-U.S. doctoral students and ABDs were marketable in the United States. Keywords: doctoral faculty, doctoral shortage, graduate students, physical education teacher education
In a large-scale study, Golde and Dore (2001) explored the demographic characteristics of doctoral students at doctorate-granting institutions (DGIs) in the arts and sciences. These researchers described characteristics of doctoral students related to their perceptions of their own doctoral student training experiences and career paths. Building on earlier work, Walker, Golde, Jones, Buecshel, and Hutchings (2008) at the Carnegie Foundation studied Ph.D. programs and expanded the previous work to include faculty perceptions. In kinesiology, Woods, Goc Karp, and Feltz Submitted April 8, 2014; accepted March 8, 2015. Correspondence should be addressed to B. Ann Boyce, Department of Kinesiology, University of Virginia, 210 Emmet Street South, P.O. Box 400407, Charlottesville, VA 22904. E-mail: [email protected]
(2003) reported that only 10.3% of doctoral students were specializing in pedagogy as compared with doctoral students in other disciplines. Similar to the early Golde and Dore study, the Woods et al. study did not address DGIs’ programs and faculty. In 2009, Parker, Sinclair, Sutherland, and Ward surveyed doctoral physical education teacher education (D-PETE) programs and reported on core curriculum requirements, numbers of D-PETE programs, program focus, and type and scope of research classes. These researchers found: (a) a loose admission requirement for PK – 12 teaching experience, (b) 23 operational D-PETE programs, and (c) a variety of program foci and research requirements. Most recently, a Journal of Teaching in Physical Education special issue (Rikard & Boyce, 2011)
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 18:12 07 October 2015
312
B. A. BOYCE ET AL.
addressed D-PETE programs from a multifaceted approach. From previous examinations, it was posed that little is known about trends related to the training and experiences of doctoral students and the extent to which the needs of PK – 12 and higher education are met. This trend study presented three rounds of data collection (2005 –2006, 2008 – 2009, and 2011 –2012) related to the characteristics of D-PETE programs. More specially, this extensive demographic description of D-PETE programs included characteristics of programs, faculty, and doctoral students. Using two previous databases (Boyce & Rikard, 2006, 2011) combined with the most recent data set, it was the intent of this study to discuss comparisons and the emergence of trends related to D-PETE programs, faculty, and doctoral students. The benefits of longitudinal data collection can serve to either observe trend changes or support existing trends over time. A cross-sectional study would not yield the information needed to answer questions related to trends of D-PETE programs. The present study added a third round of data (2011 – 2012) to the database, which now reflects 16 years of data and continues to focus on three research questions (RQs): (1) What are the characteristics of D-PETE programs in the United States? (2) What are the characteristics of the D-PETE faculty in DGIs in the United States? (3) What are the characteristics of D-PETE graduates in the United States? The present study used a commonly applied descriptive analytic policy-related research framework (e.g., Felbinger, Holzer, & White, 1999; Golde, 2006) to address specific characteristics of D-PETE programs. Descriptive information was systematically collected via e-mail from department heads for D-PETE programs. This research did not test constructs but simply described the demographics of D-PETE programs. Because few large-scale studies exist in D-PETE literature, comparisons were drawn from policyrelated research completed in other discipline areas—most notably from the arts and sciences arena.
METHODS Participants Twenty-seven academics serving as heads of D-PETE programs were invited to provide information on their doctoral students, faculty, and institutions for the 2005 – 2006, 2008 – 2009, and 2011 – 2012 academic years. Permission from the institutional review board was obtained from all participants during the three data collection periods. There were 27 respondents for the 2011 –2012 and 2008 –2009 data collection periods and 26 respondents for
2005– 2006 data collection period. These academic heads answered questions related to their respective faculties. Overall percent averages/SDs are presented: (a) gender, 52% (SD ¼ 5.3) female and 48% (SD ¼ 5.3) male; (b) rank, 26% (SD ¼ 1.0) professor, 29% (SD ¼ 4.0) associate professor, 23.5% (SD ¼ 6.9) assistant professor, and 21.5% (SD ¼ 8.2) lecturer/clinical instructor (L/CI); (c) ethnicity, 88.36% (SD ¼ 3.1) Caucasian, 5.5% (SD ¼ 0.9) African American, 3.8% (SD ¼ 1.6) Asian, 2% (SD ¼ 2) Hispanic, and 0.34% (SD ¼ 0.6) Biracial; and (d) academic heads averaged 14 years of service (SD ¼ 1.0) with a range of 13 years to 15 years of service at their present institution. By agreeing to fill out the questionnaire, participants supplied their informed consent. Instrument Employed To address the three RQs, the Doctoral Pedagogy Questionnaire (DPQ), constructed for the 2005 – 2006 study, was used. The DPQ was developed from two sources: (a) discussions with professionals representing the National Association for Sport and Physical Education, graduate coordinators, and other PETE faculty; and (b) a review of previous surveys in kinesiology (Woods et al., 2003) and general education (Golde & Dore, 2001). Items on the DPQ were directly aligned with content addressed in the RQs. The original DPQ (2005 –2006) was composed of 21 items plus faculty demographics. This instrument requested information in the following general areas: (a) 2 questions on initial teacher licensure program(s) (ITL), (b) 2 questions on the existence of D-PETE programs, (c) 6 questions on information on doctoral graduates, (d) 6 questions on information on ABD students, (e) 3 questions on funding of current doctoral students, and (f) 2 questions on plans for retirement of faculty members within the next 5 years (Boyce & Rikard, 2006). For the 2008 – 2009 study, the DPQ was revised to include two additional items related to faculty employment status (full-time [FT] or part-time [PT]) and ethnicity of the doctoral students (Boyce & Rikard, 2011). This revised DPQ (2008 – 2009) was also used for the 2011– 2012 study. Instrument Validity and Objectivity A jury of experts (PETE professionals and four graduate coordinators of D-PETE programs) was used to evaluate the original DPQ (Boyce & Rikard, 2006). Content validity of the DPQ was established by directly aligning content covered in DPQ items with descriptions of D-PETE programs. Minor revisions that did not impact content validity were made to 2011 – 2012 DPQ instruments based on suggestions from D-PETE faculty members. For all three studies, one researcher compiled the data on an Excel spreadsheet using the raw data from DPQ forms; data
CHARACTERISTICS OF PETE DOCTORAL INSTITUTIONS
entries were cross-checked independently by the researchers using the same DPQ forms, thus establishing objectivity of the data set. This process was repeated until 100% agreement was achieved, thus establishing accuracy of the coded data set. A few errors were identified using this procedure; when differences occurred, the raw sheets were compared to the Excel data sheets and the differences were resolved.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 18:12 07 October 2015
Data Collection and Analysis This trend study presented three rounds of data collection (2005 – 2006, 2008 – 2009, and 2011 – 2012), and it addressed the three RQs. Comparisons across the 3 academic years (2005 – 2006 vs. 2008 – 2009 vs. 2011 – 2012) were made on variables related to doctoral-level programs, faculty, and doctoral graduates. Additionally, historical recall data provided by academic heads of DGIs that focused on the production of doctoral-level candidates and their position placements from the 16 academic years (1996 –1997 through 2011 – 2012) was examined. Future studies should focus on the same RQs and follow the same protocol. RQ1 addressed information from D-PETE programs; data were gathered on the following institutional characteristics: (a) number of programs including existing, new, discontinued/on-hold, reinstated, and newly developed programs; (b) ITL programs at these universities; and (c) perceptions’ on doctoral student funding. RQ2 addressed information on the pedagogy faculty at the D-PETE programs; data were gathered on the following characteristics of faculty members: (a) number of PETE faculty in the institutions, (b) academic rank, (c) ethnicity, (d) gender, (e) gender by rank, and (f) number of D-PETE faculty who planned to retire within 5 years. RQ1 and RQ2 utilized the 3 academic year comparisons. RQ3 addressed information on the doctoral graduates; data were gathered on the following characteristics: (a) traits of doctoral students (e.g., earned doctorates, non-U.S. citizens, etc.) across the academic years; (b) annual graduation rates, if applicable; (c) employment success rates; and (d) the types of positions assumed by these students (e.g., higher education [HE]-PETE positions, supervisory roles, and other positions); and (e) ethnicity. Information on the doctoral graduates (including non-U.S. citizens) was described using the 16-academic year data set. Descriptive data were used to determine frequency counts and percentages for categories within each RQ.
RESULTS Longitudinal comparisons of the data related to institutional and faculty members’ characteristics were drawn from: (a) an unpublished data set for 2005– 2006 (Boyce & Rikard,
313
2006); (b) Boyce and Rikard (2011) for the 2008 – 2009 data set; and (c) the 2011– 2012 new data set. Data related to the doctoral graduate characteristics were taken from two published data sets (Boyce & Rikard, 2008, 2011) and the new data set. RQ1: Characteristics of D-PETE Programs The characteristics of the D-PETE programs that were examined included: (a) number of programs, (b) presence of ITL programs, and (c) funding for doctoral PETE students. Number of D-PETE Programs Of the participating institutions, most had a long history of graduating PETE professionals at the doctoral level (contact principal investigator for a list of the participating institutions and their statuses). Comparison across the three data collection cycles revealed a slight downward trend in the number of existing D-PETE programs from 25 in 2005– 2006 to 24 in 2008 – 2009 to 23 in 2011– 2012. Presence of Initial Teacher Licensure Programs at D-PETE Ninety-three percent of the 2005 –2006 programs had ITL compared with 96% of the 2008– 2009 and 2011– 2012 programs. Types of ITL programs included undergraduate programs, graduate programs, and 5-year programs. All but one existing D-PETE program had some form of ITL. Funding for Doctoral Students at D-PETE A review of the three data collection cycles (2005 – 2006, 2008– 2009, and 2011 – 2012) revealed similar trends when comparing the percent of doctoral students funded at DPETE programs with an overall percent average of 87%. While the number of doctoral students increased across the 3 academic years, the percentage of students receiving full funding dropped from 81% in 2005 –2006 to 65% in 2011– 2012. Additionally, the percentage of currently funded (including both full and partial funding) doctoral students decreased over time from 89% in 2005– 2006 to 85% in 2011– 2012. The academic heads at the D-PETE institutions were also asked to rate their perceptions of doctoral funding compared to other academic units in their universities. Perceived responses revealed a reduction in funding levels from 86% (in “comparable” and “above comparable” categories) in 2005 – 2006 to 70.5% in 2011– 2012. RQ2: Characteristics of PETE Faculty at DGIs Information on the pedagogy faculty members at the DPETE programs was gathered on the following characteristics: (a) number of D-PETE faculty members, (b)
314
B. A. BOYCE ET AL.
academic rank, (c) ethnicity, (d) gender, (e) gender by rank, and (f) plans to retire within 5 years.
employment success rates, (b) types of positions assumed by these graduates, (c) breakdown of non-U.S. graduates, and (d) doctoral student ethnicity.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 18:12 07 October 2015
Number of Faculty Across D-PETE Programs In 2005– 2006, there were 90 D-PETE faculty members across the 27 programs (range ¼ 1 – 7, M ¼ 3.33, SD ¼ 2.11). In 2008 – 2009, there were 114 D-PETE faculty members (range ¼ 1– 9, M ¼ 4.22, SD ¼ 2.14). In 2011 – 2012, 112 D-PETE faculty members were employed (range ¼ 1 –9, M ¼ 4.15, SD ¼ 2.03). The 2008 – 2009 and 2011 – 2012 data reflected both PT and FT appointments, whereas the 2005 – 2006 survey did not include data on PT faculty. The inclusion of PT and FT appointments may have contributed to the increase in faculty positions between the first data set and the later two data sets. The number of PT faculty accounted for 9% of the population in 2008 – 2009 and 11.6% in 2011– 2012.
Graduation and Employment Success Rates (1996– 1997 Through 2011 –2012) The overall mean was 37.4 (SD ¼ 4.81) graduates per year, which was fairly stable. In addition, an examination of the number of doctoral graduates generated during the earliest 5 years (1996 – 1997 through 2000 –2001) compared to the most recent 5 years (2007 – 2008 through 2011– 2012) revealed an increase over time. Specifically, the mean for production of new graduates from 1996– 1997 through 2000– 2001 was 33.8 (SD ¼ 3.19) compared with a mean of 40.2 (SD ¼ 4.02) in 2007 –2008 through 2011– 2012. The total number of doctoral graduates across the 16 academic years was 598. Of the total of 598 graduates, all but 3 gained employment, a success rate of 99.5%.
Academic Ranks of Faculty in D-PETE Programs The percentages of faculty members across academic ranks from 2005 –2006 to 2008 –2009 were relatively similar. The largest difference occurred in the L/CI rank (14% in 2005 – 2006 vs. 19% in 2008 –2009 vs. 30% in 2011– 2012). In 2011 – 2012, the L/CI increased (30%) while the percentage of assistant professors decreased (15%).
Types of Positions Assumed by Graduates (1996 – 1997 Through 2011 – 2012) Student placements related to types of employment were: (a) 87% found positions in institutions of HE; (b) 4% assumed roles as city/county/district supervisors in PK –12 settings; and (c) 9% secured other types of employment, taught in the PK –12 schools, or sought additional education.
Ethnicity and Gender of D-PETE Faculty Although PETE faculty members in the DGIs lack diversity, the percentage of Non-Caucasian faculty members increased from 9% in 2005 –2006 to 11% in 2008 – 2009 and 15% in 2011– 2012. Relative to gender, there was a fairly even split across all 3 academic years. Gender and Academic Rank In 2011– 2012 a comparison was made between rank and gender. Full professors were more likely to be male (66%) than female (34%), but adjuncts/L/CIs were less likely to be male (32%) than female (68%). Retirement Plans for PETE Faculty Members in DGIs The current PETE faculty members’ plans for retirement offered one indicator of possible hiring needs in D-PETE programs in the near future. The percentage of faculty planning to retire remained virtually unchanged in 2005 – 2006 (11.5%) and 2008 – 2009 (11.4%) with a slight increase in retirement plans in 2011 –2012 (15%). RQ3: Characteristics of D-PETE Graduates Information on D-PETE program graduates was gathered on the following characteristics: (a) graduation numbers and
Breakdown of Non-U.S. Graduates (1996 – 1997 Through 2011 – 2012) The total number of non-U.S. doctoral graduates across the 16 academic years was 143, with an overall mean of 8.94 (SD ¼ 2.79) students per year. The non-U.S. graduates represented 24% of the total doctoral graduate population. This percentage remained fairly stable over time. All but 1 non-U.S. doctoral graduate gained employment; 68% did so in the United States. ABDs (All But Dissertation) or Less From 2005– 2006 through 2011 – 2012, 93 ABD or less than ABD sought employment prior to finishing their degrees. The average number per year was 13.3 and 69% of these individuals gained employment in HE with the remainder either taking positions in supervision or K – 12 teaching (6%) or going to other types of positions (25%). Ethnicity of Doctoral Graduates (2005 – 2006, 2008 – 2009, and 2011 – 2012) The overall breakdown of the D-PETE program students was as follows: (a) 63% were Caucasians from the United States, (b) 14% were Non-Caucasians from the United States, (c) 8% were non-U.S. Caucasians, and (d) 11% represented non-U.S. Non-Caucasians. Of these graduates, only 25%
Supporting Evidence (SE) for Trends
1) The percentage of students receiving full funding dropped from 81% in 2005–2006 to 65% in 2011–2012. 2) The percentage of currently funded (FT or PT) doctoral students decreased from 89% in 2005–2006 to 85% in 2011–2012. 3) Academic heads at DGIs rated their perceptions of doctoral funding compared to other academic units in their universities. Perceived responses revealed a reduction in funding levels from 86% (in “comparable” and “above comparable” categories) in 2005–2006 to 70.5% in 2011–2012. 1) A small increase in the D-PETE faculty percentages of African American, Asian, and Hispanic populations was observed in the 2011–2012 data set. 2) Doctoral graduates were more diverse (25% Non-Caucasian) than D-PETE faculty (15% Non-Caucasian in 2011–2012), which should translate into an increase in diversity with future professionals.
Trend 3: Funding for doctoral students at D-PETE
Trend 4: Lack of diversity among faculty and doctoral students
(continued)
Ostriker, Holland, Kuh, and Voytuk (2010) also reported lower diversity percentages for DGI faculty (29%) and their respective doctoral students (37%). (PL)
The strategy of recruiting foreign students to increase diversity was reflected in the work of Walker et al. (2008). (PL)
SE #2: Much of the diversity was provided through the recruitment of non-U.S. graduates. (O)
Because all but one D-PETE program has ITL, doctoral students have the opportunity to supplement research funding with teaching assistantships. (O) The challenge of obtaining external funding for graduate student support has been an ongoing issue for DGIs across academia (Norris, 2011). (PL)
There was an increase in the percentage of ITL programs at DGIs: While doctoral students must be trained in the area of scholarship, 93% in 2005–2006 programs compared with 96% in the 2008– they should also be trained to teach and supervise field practica, 2009 and 2011–2012 programs. thus mentoring them for future roles in the professoriate. (O)
SE #1: The decrease in the number of PETE undergraduate and graduate programs (Newell, 1990, 2007) was coupled with the decrease in the size of some PETE programs (Solmon & Garn, 2014). (PL) SE #3: Kent (2012) noted a 5% increase in the number of first-time doctoral students entering in 2012 across all doctoral programs. (PL) SE #4: Curtis (2005) reported a hiring increase of PT faculty across all doctoral programs in the previous decade and the subsequent negative effect of this action on decreasing employment of FT, tenure-track faculty. The hiring of PT faculty is often viewed as more advantageous by money-conscious administrators because PT faculty work for lower salaries and receive fewer or no benefits (Johnson & McCarthy, 2000; Schrecker, 2010). Golde and Dore (2001) reported 43% of faculty members in the arts and sciences held PT faculty appointments, whereas the percentage of PT faculty in D-PETE was much less (13%). (PL & O)
Parallel Literature (PL)/ Observations (O)
Trend 2: Use of ITL programs to educate doctoral students
Trend 1: Reduction in D-PETE programs with corresponding 1) Number of D-PETE programs decreased slightly from 25 in changes in graduates entering HE and types of positions hired at 2005–2006 to 23 in 2011–2012. DGIs 2) There was a decrease in the percentage of doctoral students entering HE: 78% in 2011–12 compared with the overall average of 87% across the 16-year cycle. 3) Number of D-PETE graduates has slowly increased over time. 4) The hiring trend reflects an increase in nontenured positions (lecturer/CI/adjunct) from 14% in 2005–2006 to 30% in 2011– 2012 and an increase in the hiring of PT faculty from 10% in 2008– 2009 to 13% in 2011–2012.
Trend
TABLE 1 Trends Related to the Combined Data Sets
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 18:12 07 October 2015
CHARACTERISTICS OF PETE DOCTORAL INSTITUTIONS
315
1) A high percentage (68%) of non-U.S. doctorates found employment in the United States. The number of non-U.S. doctoral graduates averaged 8.9 graduates per year (across the 16academic year cycle). 2) All but one of these individuals found employment either in the United States or abroad. 3) Across the 16-year data set, an average of 23.44% (SD ¼ 6.57%) of D-PETE doctoral students came from outside of the United States.
All ABDs or less who sought employment gained employment with The employment rate for ABDs or less (100%) was considerably the majority of them (69%) successfully attaining positions in HE. greater compared with those in the arts and sciences (54%; Ostriker et al., 2010). (PL)
Trend 6: Employment of non-U.S. doctorates
Trend 7: Employment of ABDs or less
Note. D-PETE ¼ doctoral physical education teacher education; DGI ¼ doctorate-granting institution; HE ¼ higher education; CI ¼ clinical instructor; PT ¼ part-time; FT ¼ full-time; ITL ¼ initial teacher licensure.
SE #3: Redden (2013) reported a dependence of U.S. graduate programs on foreign students; D-PETE programs have been operating this way for some time as indicated by the fairly stable numbers during a 16-year time frame. (PL)
SE #1: According to Golde and Dore (2001), 69% of graduates in the arts and sciences enter HE compared with 87% in D-PETE. (PL) SE #3: The employment rate among PETE doctoral students (99.5%) was considerably greater compared with that of arts and sciences students (54%; Ostriker et al., 2010). (PL) For-profit institutions are now offering online terminal degrees and several institutions have programs in curriculum and instruction rather than D-PETE programs. Hiring practices of universities should be monitored to see if the universities believe that candidates from these non D-PETE programs are considered satisfactory. (O)
1) A high overall average percentage (87%) of doctoral graduates enter HE positions. This 87% translates into an average 32.5 PETE faculty members a year entering HE. 2) A 9% decline in PETE doctorates entering HE was noted in 2011–2012 compared with the 16-year average. 3) A high employment rate in PETE doctoral students (99.5%) was observed.
Trend 5: Pedagogy doctorates enter HE & employment rates
Parallel Literature (PL)/ Observations (O)
Supporting Evidence (SE) for Trends
Trend
TABLE 1 – (Continued)
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 18:12 07 October 2015
316 B. A. BOYCE ET AL.
CHARACTERISTICS OF PETE DOCTORAL INSTITUTIONS
were Non-Caucasians regardless of country of origin. The percentage of U.S. Caucasians dropped slightly from 67% in 2005 –2006 to 60% in 2011 – 2012. However, the percentage of Non-Caucasians held steady at around 25%.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 18:12 07 October 2015
DISCUSSION The present research was descriptive analytic in nature and focused on characteristics of D-PETE programs, students, and faculty. As a part of this discussion, trends were identified based on findings across the three data sets. Table 1 outlines seven trends along with supporting evidence from this article, parallel literature findings, and observations. As a result of the trends outlined in Table 1, the following recommendations are made by the authors: . Programs must look past the possible short-term
financial benefits of hiring PT faculty and consider the long-term impact of these decisions on the overall health of the PETE profession; FT and tenure-track (TT) faculty members should be hired (Curtis, 2005). The decrease in the number of D-PETE programs and graduates entering HE should be reversed as continuing this trend represents a harbinger of bad news for pedagogy at Research I intensive and extensive universities and the profession as a whole in terms of quality of research and instruction. A strategy for accomplishing more TT positions, PETE faculty members must be more vocal and argue for more TT positions, as this impacts stability, research productivity, and program quality. . Based on the crucial function that ITL programs play in the training of future pedagogists, it is recommended that PETE programs maintain ITL programs. Aligning doctoral training through the apprenticeship model (Metzler, 1999) would be one way to solidify this link between PETE and D-PETE. From an ecological standpoint, D-PETE programs, PETE programs, and PK –12 physical education are all interdependently linked and the health of one unit is interconnected with the health of all (van der Mars, 2011). . Funding for doctoral student support in pedagogy must be pursued. Doctoral students should be FT students as students who complete the degree as PT students while having FT jobs do not experience the full benefit of focusing only on research and study during the doctoral experience. Additional funding may also prevent candidates from leaving the university prior to completing their degrees (e.g., ABD) to secure employment (Boyce & Rikard, 2011). Obtaining funding sources, although difficult, may be accomplished through interdisciplinary collaboration efforts especially through science, technology, engineering
317
and math (STEM) efforts (Ward et al., 2011). Some DGIs have developed special funds for those academic units with fewer funding capabilities and have tapped into university fellowships and awards. . In light of the changing ethnic diversity in our general population, efforts to recruit and graduate NonCaucasians into the professorial ranks should be strengthened. Possible strategies include: (a) recruiting among our own students, and (b) developing relationships with traditional minority colleges and universities. . Programs need to develop a pipeline for recruiting teachers from PK – 12 U.S. schools into doctoral programs. Programs need to involve undergraduates and master’s students in research projects to make them aware of the potential to do research and to prepare them to pursue the doctoral degree and enter HE. If doctoral programs continue to recruit non-U.S. individuals, they need to give foreign students experience in U.S. schools as often, their experience in PK –12 education is very different than in their own countries. For example, at The Ohio State University, doctoral students work in public schools in semesterlong practica to help them gain experience in PK – 12 teaching. . We recommend that doctoral students complete their education before securing positions in HE. The increasing trend of the hiring of ABDs deserves further examination about whether they finish the degree, the types of positions they take, and whether they are successful in their jobs.
WHAT DOES THIS ARTICLE ADD? The present study on D-PETE programs was part of a trend study providing an extensive description of demographics about the following topics: (a) doctoral program characteristics, (b) faculty, and (c) doctoral students/graduates. Using previous data sets from the academic years of 2005– 2006 and 2008 – 2009 as well as selected summary data from 1996– 1997 through 2008 –2009 and adding the most recent data from 2011 –2012, several trends were identified. First, there was a decrease in the number of D-PETE programs and an increase of nontenured and PT pedagogy faculty. Second, ITL programs remained in existence at the vast majority of DGIs. Third, funding of D-PETE students at DGIs was decreasing. Fourth, racial composition of DPETE graduates and current doctoral students remained largely skewed toward Caucasians. Fifth, there was a slight decline in the percentage of D-PETE students entering HE, but the job market remained strong for graduates. Sixth, non-U.S. D-PETE students and ABDs were marketable in the United States. It is vital for any discipline area to
318
B. A. BOYCE ET AL.
examine changes within the field related to doctoral preparation to more fully understand where the field is headed. This current study is the only comprehensive trend research study to examine these issues in D-PETE.
Downloaded by [University of Sussex Library] at 18:12 07 October 2015
REFERENCES Boyce, B. A., & Rikard, G. L. (2006). [Characteristics of faculty and doctoral granting institutions—2005–6 through 1996–97]. Unpublished raw data. Boyce, B. A., & Rikard, G. L. (2008). A comparison of supply and demand for PETE faculty: The changing landscape. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79, 540– 545. Boyce, B. A., & Rikard, G. L. (2011). Characteristics of PETE doctoral level institutions: Descriptions of programs, faculty and doctoral students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 30, 103–115. Curtis, J. W. (Ed.). (2005). Trends in faculty status, 1975–2003. Unpublished data, American Association of University Professors, Washington, DC. Felbinger, C. L., Holzer, M., & White, J. D. (1999). The doctorate in public administration: Some unresolved questions and recommendations. Public Administration Review, 59, 459–464. Golde, C. M. (2006). Preparing stewards of the discipline. In C. M. Golde & G. E. Walker (Eds.), Envisioning the future of doctoral education. Stanford, CA: Jossey-Bass. Golde, C. M., & Dore, T. M. (2001). At cross purposes: What the experiences of doctoral students reveal about doctoral education. Philadelphia, PA: Pew Charitable Trusts. Johnson, B., & McCarthy, T. (2000). Casual labor and the future of the academy. Thought & Action, 16(1), 107– 114. Kent, J. (2012). U.S. graduate schools report slight growth in new students for fall 2012. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. Retrieved from http://www.cgsnet.org/us-graduate-school-growth-new-studentsfall-2012 Metzler, M. (1999, January). Preparing professors of physical education and the sport sciences for the new university: The apprentice scholar model. Paper presented at the National Association for Physical Education in Higher Education Conference, San Diego, CA.
Newell, K. M. (1990). Physical education in higher education. Quest, 42, 269–278. Newell, K. M. (2007). Kinesiology: Challenges of multiple agendas. Quest, 59, 5 –24. Norris, J. (2011, November/December). The crisis in extramural funding. Academe, 97(6). Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/article/crisisextramural-funding Ostriker, J. P., Holland, P. W., Kuh, C. V., & Voytuk, J. A. (Eds.). (2010). A data-based assessment of research-doctorate programs in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/Resdoc Parker, M., Sinclair, C., Sutherland, S., & Ward, P. (2009). A survey of physical education teacher education doctoral programs [Abstract]. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 80(Suppl. 1), A69. Redden, E. (2013, July 12). Foreign student dependence. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/07/12/newreport-shows-dependence-us-graduate-programs-foreign-students Rikard, G. L., & Boyce, B. A. (Eds.). (2011). A multifaceted examination of the status of PETE doctoral education in the U.S. [Special issue]. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 30(2). Schrecker, E. (2010). The lost soul of higher education: Corporatization, the assault on academic freedom, and the end of the American university. New York, NY: New Press. Solmon, M. A., & Garn, A. C. (2014). Effective teaching in physical education: Using transportation metaphors to assess our status and drive our future. Research Quarterly in Exercise and Sport, 85, 20 – 26. van der Mars, H. (2011). Reflecting on the state of U.S. doctoral PETE programs . . . ‘Houston we have a problem.’ Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 30, 189–208. Walker, G. E., Golde, C. M., Jones, L., Buecshel, A. C., & Hutchings, P. (2008). The formation of scholars: Rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first century. Stanford, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ward, P., Sutherland, S., Woods, M., Boyce, B. A., Goc Karp, G., . . . Sinclair, C. (2011). The doctorate in physical education teacher education in the 21st century: Contexts and changes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 30, 178 –188. Woods, M. L., Goc Karp, G., & Feltz, D. (2003). Positions in kinesiology and physical education at the college or university level. Quest, 55, 30–50.
