No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The purpose of this study was to identify in which areas of teaching assistant responsibilities graduate teaching assistants, professors, and students viewed TAs as knowledgeable, and in which areas of teaching assistant responsibilities graduate teaching assistants, professors, and students viewed TAs as utilized. Specifically, the purpose of the study was to determine whether teaching assistants were utilized or perceived as knowledgeable in curriculum development, course maintenance, teaching responsibilities, and mentoring. Teaching assistants, students, and instructors (n = 233) were administered a survey purposed to measure TAs' effectiveness based on their utility and knowledge in four areas of TA responsibilities: curriculum development, course maintenance, teaching responsibilities, and mentoring. All three participant groups perceived that TAs were utilized in course maintenance and mentoring, and they perceived the TAs were knowledgeable in course maintenance, teaching responsibilities, and mentoring. Overall, instructors viewed TAs as more knowledgeable than did the TA participant group, and the TA participant group viewed themselves as more knowledgeable than did the student participant group.

Calls for reform in doctoral education are not new. However, the past decade has experienced renewed interest and discussion in preparing the future professoriate. Whereas most studies of graduate student socialization and preparation for faculty roles have focused on doctoral students or new faculty, this study examined the perceptions of senior faculty members involved in doctoral education. All senior faculty (n=4970) in biological sciences, English, mathematics, and non-clinical psychology from a stratified sample of 69 research universities nationwide were invited to participate. More than 1150 faculty completed a web-based survey. Respondents rated the importance of 18 competencies (based on a framework by Austin and McDaniels) and 24 roles during 1) the first three years of faculty work and 2) doctoral education. Additionally, participants identified persons having primary responsibility for introducing doctoral students to each competency or role. Faculty respondents rated general competencies and research roles as more important than teaching and service roles for both new faculty and doctoral students. Whereas nearly all items were rated higher in importance for faculty than students, mean difference scores showed great variability. Results also varied by discipline. In general, most respondents viewed the doctoral student advisor or all faculty members in the academic unit as having primary responsibility for introducing specific roles and competencies to doctoral students; other common responses included the student and nobody. Results of the study have important implications for doctoral education at the national, institutional, and unit levels. First, consideration of disciplinary differences in priorities for doctoral training and new faculty development programs is vital. Additionally, multiple stakeholders can impact the preparation of future faculty. Training institutions, hiring institutions, and students can play a role in narrowing the gap between doctoral student preparation and the work required of new faculty. Suggestions for future research include expanding the sample to include a broader array of academic disciplines and incorporating qualitative methods to discern reasons for disparities in the importance assigned to specific competencies and roles. Research should also explore the perceptions of senior faculty concerning the worth and feasibility of recent recommendations aimed at better preparing future faculty.

Roughly half of all doctoral students who begin a program do not continue through graduation, and many of them face significant financial losses and emotional burdens as a result. Although this completion rate has stayed fairly constant for the past few decades, it has recently gained attention on a national level. In 2011, the National Research Council published the Assessment of Research Doctorate Programs in the United States, and provided a wealth of data on over 5,000 programs in 212 universities. This study used that dataset to examine the relationship between timely doctoral completion rates and 22 Program, Faculty and Student variables in the following five fields: Neuroscience, Chemical Engineering, Physics, Economics and English. The study also observed differences between programs with high completion rates and those with low completion rates in each field. The purpose of the study was to (1) determine which variables are significant in predicting doctoral completion rates, (2) discover if measurable differences exist between high and low completing programs, and (3) reveal the usefulness of collecting objective data in doctoral programs in order to assist doctoral programs as they create strategies to lower attrition rates. The sample in the study inculded over 10,000 students and over 12,000 faculty members from 365 programs in the five fields. The 22 variables in the study were: Availability of a Graduate Orientation, Existence of an Annual Student Review, Number of Academic Support Activities, Average First Year Enrollment Size, Total Number of Enrolled Students, Percentage of First Year Students with Full Financial Support, Percentage of Students that are Teaching Assistants, Percentage that are Research Assistants, Median Time to Degree, Average GRE Score, Percentage of Students that are Married, Percentage of Students with Dependents, Percentage of Students with Mentors, Average Satisfaction Rating, Average Sense of Belonging Rating, Percentage of Students that are Females, Percentage that are Minorities, Percentage of Faculty that are Females, Percentage that are Minorities, Percentage of Faculty with Grants, Total Number of Faculty, and Faculty to Student Ratio. All of the regression lines were significant at the p¡Ü.05 level. Furthermore, for Economics programs in the sample, 80%#37; of the variance in timely completion rates was explained by this specific set of variables, and the same set of variables explained between 40-66%#37; of the variance in timely completion rates for the other four fields in the study. When looking at all the programs in the dataset, the following variables were significantly related to timely completion rates: number of academic support activities, percentage of students with full financial support, 1st year size, annual student review, student satisfaction rating, number of faculty, percentage of students with teaching assistantships, percentage of faculty with grants, and time to degree. Between the high- and low-completion groups, the following variables were significantly different in the All Programs group: Student satisfaction rating, percentage of students with children, percentage of students with full financial support, number of academic support activities, time to degree, and percentage of students with teaching assistantships. Separate findings and implications are presented for each of the five fields (Neuroscience, Chemical Engineering, Physics, Economics and English). Program leaders and other interested parties can now use these results to focus their attention on significant variables as they create strategies for improving completion rates within their respective fields.

Almost half of all graduate students leave their doctoral programs without finishing. Who leaves, taking which skills and strengths with them, is still poorly understood, however, because it is hard to measure exactly what graduate students learn in their doctoral programs. Since the expertise required of a PhD holder is highly dependent on discipline, the development of a better understanding of graduate education and attrition requires studying the process at the departmental level.This is a qualitative study of the cultural values and norms of academic astronomy, as transmitted through the socialization of graduate students into giving talks, asking questions, and participating in departmental speaking events. This study also looks at the conflicts that arise when implicit cultural norms, which are practiced but remain unacknowledged, are inconsistent with the official, explicit values and norms for speaking in astronomy.Doctoral students and faculty members in a single astronomy department, at a large western university, filled out a short survey about the stakes involved in astronomy speaking events. A subset of these individuals was interviewed in-depth about the goals of, and their experiences with, five departmental speaking events: Coffee Hour, Journal Club, research talks, Thesis defense talks, and Colloquia. These interviewees were: (1) graduate students who had given a verbal presentation at one of these events, and (2) graduate students and faculty members who were in the audience at a graduate student's presentation.The desired outcomes which were expressed for these speaking events included: (1) lively, informal discussion among all participants, (2) increasing graduate student verbal participation in these events as they "learn to speak like astronomers," and (3) the utility of these events in helping graduate students learn and practice their speaking and reasoning skills related to astronomy research. In practice these goals were not achieved due to: (1) the ubiquitous, but unacknowledged practice of judging others' speech performance to come to negative conclusions about those individuals' intentions, intellectual abilities or efforts, (2) a lack of feedback for graduate students on their verbal performances, and (3) a lack of faculty members making explicit their own solutions to the inherent dilemmas of academic speaking.

Thesis (M. Ed.) -- University of Alberta, 2010. / "A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Education in Theoretical, Cultural and International Studies in Education, Educational Policy Studies, University of Alberta. Title from pdf file main screen (viewed on May 19, 2010) Includes bibliographical references.

abstract: Studies suggest that graduate students experience higher rates of anxiety and depression than their peers outside of academia. Studies also show exercise is correlated with lower levels of anxiety and depression among graduate students. However, despite this evidence, nearly half of graduate students do not exercise regularly. Accordingly, I suggest universities consider adding an exercise requirement to promote graduate student well-being. One potential objection to this recommendation is that an exercise requirement is objectionably paternalistic. I answer this objection with two possible replies. First, there are reasons why the exercise requirement might not be paternalistic, and there may be sufficient non-paternalistic reasons to justify the policy. Second, there are reasons why even if the policy is paternalistic, it is not objectionably paternalistic, and may still be justified. I will offer reasons to consider paternalism in a positive light and why the exercise requirement may be an example of a good paternalistic policy. Because the exercise requirement might be justified on paternalistic grounds, there are reasons to consider other paternalistic policies to promote graduate student well-being. / Dissertation/Thesis / Masters Thesis Philosophy 2020