The academy, its faculty, and recruiters have discordant views about credentialed graduates’ workplace viability. As the powerful gatekeepers between education and the employment market, recruiters’ perceptions of college credentials may dictate applicants’ interview progression. Although nearly 100% of today’s college administrators believe higher education programs prepare students for the workplace, less than 12% of recruiters deem graduates ready to succeed in organizational settings after graduation. The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in recruiters’ perceptions of online and face-to-face higher education credentials as indicators of applicants’ workplace readiness. The theoretical foundation of this study was Spence’s signaling theory grounded on the traditional premise that academic credentials profoundly benefit college graduates. Topics of inquiry were recruiters’ perceptions of college degree importance, the applicability of online and face-to-face higher education credentials, academic rigor, educational quality, credential trustworthiness, and applicants’ workplace and leadership readiness. A non-experimental cross-sectional Higher Education and Workplace Readiness Survey comparative design provided quantitative data from 159 recruiters and was analyzed with U, H, and t tests. Recruiters viewed academic credentials as important to applicants’ workplace readiness, yet perceived that online college degree programs lack academic rigor and educational quality. Online bachelors, masters, and doctorate credentials were viewed as inferior to and less trustworthy than face-to-face credentials. Positive social change can occur when academic and organizational leaders collaborate to build principled degree programs around essential job skills, so graduates and recruiters view all academic credentials as trusted predictors of career readiness that benefit society.

Faculty expressed a need to improve knowledge and skills related to leading Doctor of Nursing Practice projects. A mentoring program was designed to provide faculty the skills to increase confidence when leading Doctor of Nursing Practice projects. The program included an assessment of confidence of six key skills. The intervention included didactic and individual experiential learning that coincided with student progression through project courses. Participants' self-identified areas of need included understanding application of translation science, methods, statistical choices, and all phases of analysis. Four of the six elements were improved from baseline, with two statistically significant, Project Analysis (M = 2.05, SD =0.88, p < .041) and Project Dissemination (M = 2.25, SD = 0.89, p < .046). The pilot project was a first step in assessing strategies for educating and mentoring faculty leading Doctor of Nursing Practice projects.

Background/Introduction: A mentoring program was designed to provide faculty the skills to increase confidence when leading Doctor of Nursing Practice projects. The program included an assessment of confidence of six key skills. The intervention included didactic and individual experiential learning that coincided with student progression through project courses.Purpose: The purpose of this project was to provide an intervention to promote faculty confidence when leading DNP projects. The objectives were to: assess faculty participants' self-perceived confidence regarding needed leading DNP projects, create and implement a faculty development program based on the responses, and evaluate the faculty perception of confidence post-intervention. Methods OR Process/Procedures: Participants completed a questionnaire to evaluate perception of confidence regarding leading student DNP projects. The intervention included didactic and individual mentoring, synchronous educational and guidance sessions, along with individual mentoring sessions. The sessions were provided at intervals over 10 months. Mentoring corresponded to DNP course progression. Key skills included project identification, evidence evaluation, frameworks, evidence critiques, methods, implementation, data analysis, and dissemination. Three to four months after the mentoring ended, participants were asked to rate their confidence on the same questionnaire.Results: Participants' self-identified areas of need included understanding application of translation science, methods, statistical choices, and all phases of analysis. Four of the six elements were improved from baseline, with two statistically significant, Project Analysis and Project Dissemination.Limitations: Limitations included, small sample size, questionnaire only tested for face validity, and drop-out rate over time.Conclusions: Mentoring while actively working with student projects is vital to apply concepts in real-time. Pairing junior faculty with senior faculty enhances experiential learning needed to effectively lead DNP projects. Sharing real-time feedback for each component of students' proposals and manuscripts allowed participants to observe mentors providing student guidance.

No description available.