Executive Summary (3 5 pages) - ecu.edu Summary (3 ... Often students, unable to adequately respond...

1

Executive Summary (3‐5 pages)

The PhD program in the East Carolina University (ECU) College of Nursing (CON) began in 2002 and has

made remarkable progress since the admission of its first two students. Since 2002 the program has

been led by four different directors, the longest of which served for six years, each moving the program

forward in unique and essential ways. As evidenced in the enrollment trends, the program has averaged

5.2 student admissions/year from inception. Since 2009, the date of the last seven year review, that

average has increased to 6.1 student admissions/year. The average annual census for the past 8 years

has been 30.25 students compared to a current census of 37 students. The program exceeds the state

norm for attracting male students but remains below the norm for attracting minority students. Given

the state estimate of a 28.8% minority population, having only 10% of the current students be minorities

is low for our region and remains a goal for the program. Over the last three years there has been an

increasing application trend for the program. This is attributable to a more comprehensive and

aggressive marketing program and to growing awareness of the quality of the program in the state. The

decision to transition the program from a 100% face‐to‐face curriculum to a 50% hybrid curriculum

supports the recruitment and diversity goals of the PhD program.

East Carolina University is a mission driven school and this mission provides direction for the PhD

program in the CON. That three‐part mission includes assuring student success and regional

transformation as well as providing public service. Each of these three elements is a part of the ongoing

operational goals of the PhD program and are described in more detail within this report. ECU is located

in the poorest of areas in North Carolina. It serves a primarily rural population, many of whom have no

college educated members in their family. Evaluation of new college students at ECU reveal that 33‐50%

of them come from families where no one attended college or if they attended, the parent did not

complete a college degree.

Given these demographics, student success is a critical value often requiring great dedication to student

mentoring and support. One particular challenge is in written expression. Repeatedly when faculty

assess teaching challenges and review candidacy exams, writing emerges as a major weakness in the

student population. Faculty report spending extensive amounts of time reviewing and editing student

papers. Often students, unable to adequately respond to candidacy exam questions in a written format,

are able to do so during the oral examination. This led to developing a Writing and Learning Community

(WLC) beginning with the 2016 cohort. The WLC will include elements such as assessment of student

writing, writing workshops, peer review, collaborative writing opportunities, mentoring, and program

evaluation. In addition, the WLC will serve to support current and ongoing conversations about

advanced genres (i.e. grant writing, writing for publication) required for doctoral education and faculty

development to support teaching of writing.

A curricular initiative to support student success is the addition of seminar classes focused on

socialization of students into the role of scholar. Beginning with three one‐hour courses offered across

the first three semesters from 2012‐2015, to the current three hour summer seminar on nursing

scholarship, the school has worked to help students conceptualize what it means to be a nurse scientist

and steward of the discipline.

Establishing a dedicated core group of PhD faculty that work together to address student challenges and

evolve the curriculum to address those concerns is another strategy for student success. Commitment

2

to annual reflective retreats to process this information has resulted in ongoing curricular evolution and

improvement. The implementation of a faculty orientation requirement to teach in the PhD program

assures that research mentors and chairs have a shared vision for student success and program

benchmarks. Additionally, refinement of the program’s policies and improvement of the program’s

handbook both support achieving high standards for student success.

While student success is clearly a major goal of the program, regional transformation is also a focus. The

PhD program contributes to this goal by 1) Advancing nursing science critical to improving the health of

regional populations and communities, 2) Increasing the number of well‐trained nurse educators to

teach the next generation of nurses needed in the region, and 3) Developing nurse executives equipped

to lead health systems, quality improvement initiatives, and schools of nursing.

Advancing nursing science to transform the region requires increasing bio‐behavioral research around

the needs of the community ECU serves. Age‐adjusted death rates are substantially greater in Eastern

NC than the rest of the state for virtually all major causes of death; but are particularly notable for heart

disease and stroke mortality. Cardiovascular death rates (CVD) by county in N.C. shows that higher CVD

death rates are clustered primarily in eastern N.C. The percentage of CVD deaths occurring before age

65 varies across counties, ranging from 11.5 to 29.6 percent, but the percentage of CVD deaths

occurring before age 65 is highest in the East Region of NC (21.9 percent). Moreover, morbidity and

mortality rates in the region evidence racial disparities that are profound and persistent. For example,

rates for diabetes mortality are 129% greater and breast cancer mortality rates are 79% greater for non‐

whites.

Increasing bio‐behavioral research within the ECU College of Nursing is being advanced through the

creation of a new Department of Nursing Science. Faculty housed in this department will devote 40% or

more of their workload to research and will be primary mentors and scholars within the PhD program.

As the school transitions from a primary mission of teaching to an equally important mission of research,

resources must be aligned and faculty recruited. In the 2015‐2016 AY the Dean allocated 3 new faculty

lines to the Department of Nursing Science (DoNS), resulting in the recruitment of two young scientists

and a senior scientist. The DoNS Chair/PhD Program Director report to the Associate Dean for Research

and Scholarship, further advancing the school’s commitment to research. Many efforts within the PhD

program are focused on increasing collaborative research within the health sciences division. These

include monthly Research Mingles where students and researchers can meet informally, faculty

participation in inter‐professional research initiatives, and student exposure to Centers within the

University devoted to diversity, disparity, obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular research.

Regional transformation as a goal also means increasing the annual student census in the program from

30 to 40 over the next five years in an effort to address current and future faculty shortages. The NC

Board of Nursing reports a current need for 65‐70 additional faculty members. The Board also

advocates for advancing faculty education since only 4% of faculty in NC associate degree programs hold

a doctorate, and only 23.6% in baccalaureate programs. By increasing enrollment, the PhD program can

help meet this unmet need in the state. The promotion of the BSN‐PhD option for nurse educators is a

critical strategy to achieve this goal. The current director of the MSN Nursing Education Concentration

works closely with the PhD director to identify students who need to consider that program and who

need to continue their educational journey beyond the master’s degree. The new hybrid curriculum will

3

also facilitate increasing enrollment as it allows the program to extend recruitment of students beyond

the immediate region.

Finally, education of nurse executives and advancement of system science support regional

transformation by preparing leaders who can advance nursing science within health systems, improve

patient and organizational outcomes, and contribute as stewards of the discipline. Evidence that the

program is leading the way in these areas of regional transformation is clearly seen in the 36 alumni of

the program. Fifty three percent are employed as faculty, 33% are in administrative and regulatory roles

within the state, and 14% are advancing clinical research at the bedside. It is particularly noteworthy

that of the 19 PhD graduates employed in faculty roles, all but one of those are working in eastern NC.

Public service, the third mission of East Carolina University, is clearly advanced by the PhD program.

Both students and faculty participate in their communities to serve others. This was most recently

highlighted by leadership exhibited in the Lumberton and Greenville areas during the floods. Faculty

and students serve on professional committees, hold regional, state, and national offices, devote

themselves to community engagement, and are honored as Teacher‐Scholars and members of the

“Servire” society at the university.

While the PhD program clearly evidences a history of improvements devoted to student success,

regional transformation and public service, the program is also committed to ongoing improvement. In

the spring of 2016, prior to implementing the new curriculum, the department queried existing students

to determine perceptions about the program and to identify strengths and weaknesses. Of the 25

enrolled students surveyed, 73% responded. Thirty‐seven percent were post‐ and 53% pre‐candidacy.

Students were asked to rate her or his impression of the ECU CON community. Four categories (safety,

welcoming, competitiveness, and diversity) were rated on a 4‐point scale (1=not at all, 2=a little,

3=moderate, 4=very). The means for all four categories fell between 3 and 4. Diversity received the

lowest score (3.06) and safety received the highest score (3.72). Of note, 11 students indicated the ECU

CON was very competitive, very welcoming, and 14 indicated it was very safe.

As highlighted earlier in this summary, increasing diversity within the PhD program is a significant goal.

This is no easy task given the low numbers of minority nurses in general and the reality that most

minority nurses access basic education through associate degree programs. Future recruitment

targeted at historically black universities, Regionally Increasing Baccalaureate Nurses (RIBN) and RN‐BSN

students will help achieve this goal as will increasing diversity within the faculty who teach in the PhD

program. The first African‐American PhD faculty member was added to the Department of Nursing

Science in 2016.

Students were also asked to rate their experience in the ECU CON PhD program on a 5 point scale

(1=poor; 5=excellent) with mean scores for all three questions near 4, indicating that overall students

had a very good academic, student life, and overall experience with the school. Students evaluated the

quality of various support services available to PhD students. Mean scores for the library and electronic

research resources and the PhD program office were all above 4. The majority of resources had a mean

score between 3 and 4 with only one support service, student services support for “my record tracker”,

falling below 3 (good). The college is currently investigating alternative software for use in student

services since the “my record tracker” has been problematic for both faculty and students across all

levels in the college.

4

Program quality was also evaluated by students using a scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). The mean

scores for program quality typically fell between 3 (good) and 4 (very good). The lowest mean for these

questions was 3.50 (opportunity to collaborate across disciplines) and the highest mean was 4.05

(student development as a scholar). The program is currently increasing these opportunities within the

program. Research mentors are being assigned at the end of year one, instead of year two or three.

These advisors guide and assist students in attending national and regional events in the area of science

of interest. Student stipends to attend the regional research conference, the Southern Nursing Research

Society (SNRS) meeting, have been prioritized for funding. Since beginning the stipends two years ago,

more than 20 PhD students have attended the conference. Students who have abstracts accepted for

poster or podium presentations can apply for funding support from the department as well. The college

sponsors a number of lectureships and research exchanges to increase contact with leading nurse

scientists in the country. Students have had group and one on one meetings with these scientists. Past

scientists who were invited speakers at these research conferences include Drs. Bernadette Melnyk,

Jean McSweeney, Cindy Munro, Antonia Villarruel, and Jean Watson. We have also increased the

number of Research Assistant opportunities with benefits to foster full time enrollment and

opportunities to enhance their research skills. As a result, the program currently has 4 full time

students, the most in the history of the school.

Collaboration across disciplines occurs via the Research Mingles but will be increased as nurse scientist

faculty members establish research teams that are inter‐disciplinary. Currently, strong collaborations

are evident between the School of Medicine and the College of Nursing with Drs. Schreier and Scott

working on funded projects. Drs. Crane, Hardin, and Larson are all research affiliates with the ECU

Office of Healthy Aging Research, Education, and Service (OHARES). Growing partnerships are occurring

between the College of Allied Health Sciences, the Center for Health Disparities, the East Carolina

Diabetes and Obesity Institute, and the East Carolina Heart Institute.

Advisement was another area evaluated by students participating in the survey. All students in all

phases of the program rated the performance of their academic advisor or dissertation chair. Several

statements were given describing typical behaviors of advisors, and students rated how strongly they

agreed or disagreed with the statement from 1(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The majority of

students agreed with most statements, reflecting a positive relationship with the academic advisor.

However, some students voiced feeling a lack of guidance for dissertation ideas/timing/electives, a lack

of availability of faculty, and a need for more mentorship in publishing.

Improving advisement and support for students as they matriculate through the program is a priority for

the program and is evidenced in the new student handbook and PhD faculty orientation guide. Directed

research and dissertation contracts have been developed; timelines requiring achievement of program

benchmarks, and student/faculty Lunch and Learn sessions have been implemented to address

advisement concerns and promote positive mentor relationships with students. The addition of faculty

to replace those who have retired/resigned will create better student/faculty ratios that increase time

available to aid students. Finally, the addition of two manuscript options for dissertation completion

also supports helping students learn to publish and disseminate relevant findings about nursing science.

The PhD program at ECUCON is dedicated to making students successful and to transforming our region.

This self‐study has been insightful to the program and we look forward to the reviewer’s insights and

recommendations.

5

1. Program purpose:

1.1 Provide a clear and concise statement of the program’s purpose

The purpose of the PhD program is to equip nurse scholars to explore, develop, and advance the

scientific bases of nursing practice, administration, and education.

1.2 Describe how the program’s purpose aligns to the University’s mission and strategic initiatives

The mission of East Carolina University (ECU) is to be a national model for student success,

public service, and regional transformation. Accomplishment of that mission occurs through

three major strategic initiatives: 1) Maximizing student success, 2) Serving the public, and 3)

Leading regional transformation. Echoing the university’s mission, the College of Nursing’s

(CON) mission is “to serve as a national model for transforming the health of rural underserved

regions through excellence and innovation in nursing education, leadership, research,

scholarship and practice”.

The purpose of the PhD program aligns with both the university and college mission by

preparing researchers and scholars who develop the evidence to improve nursing education,

professional practice, health policy, and most importantly, patient and population health. This

advanced education, equips nurses to be advocates for public policy and participants in public

service. Additionally, when considering the specific mission and goals of ECU, the PhD program

in the CON helps achieve the university’s priority action to dramatically expand ECU’s research

enterprise by investing in the people, tools, and facilities needed to conduct mission‐driven

research.

PhD‐prepared nurses most often become faculty members and academic/practice leaders.

These nurses transform the region through: (a) educating the next generation of nurses, (b)

advancing research that promotes patient safety and positive health outcomes, and (c) insuring

an adequate and informed nursing workforce. Thus, a PhD program is fundamental to health

transformation in the eastern NC region.

1.3 Articulate specific and unique features of the program that distinguish it from others

One of the unique features of the ECU PhD in nursing program relates to its geographic location

in rural eastern North Carolina. Resolution of poor health outcomes is a primary concern for the

United States and nowhere in our state is this more evident than this area. The Agency for

Healthcare Research & Quality (AHRQ) Disparities Report (2014) cites rural residence, minority

ethnicity, and low socio‐economic status (SES) as social determinants of health placing those at

high risk for poor health outcomes.

ECU is situated in a traditionally agricultural region characterized by profound poverty, low

educational attainment, scarce resources, and predominantly minority (mostly African

American, but with growing Latino) populations. Age‐adjusted death rates are substantially

greater in Eastern NC than the rest of the state for virtually all major causes of death; heart

disease and stroke mortality are given as examples. Moreover, morbidity and mortality in the

6

region evidence racial disparities that are profound and persistent. For example, rates for

diabetes mortality are 129% greater and breast cancer mortality rates are 79% greater for non‐

whites.

Table 1: Regional Population‐Specific Needs Including Social Determinants of Health/Health

Disparities (Source: http://www.schs.state.nc.us/)

NC versus Eastern

NC

Population %

Black

%

Poverty

Heart Disease

death

rate/100,000

Stroke

Death

rate/100,000

PCP/10,000

NC 9,535,483 21.5% 15.5% 170.0 43.7 7.8

Pitt Co. – ECU 168,148 34.1% 23.9% 176.8 48.6 13.8

Greene Co. 21,362 37.3% 18.4% 207.2 52.2 3.7

Lenoir Co. 5,495 40.5% 22.7% 222.0 54.2 6.1

Duplin Co. 59,882 25.0% 26.3% 173.7 45.3 3.7

Table 2: Clinical Outcomes (Source http://bphc.hrsa.gov/uds/datacenter.aspx?q=d)

Parameter Yr. = 2014 Duplin County Greene County Lenoir County

Total Patient Number 35,808 33,708 9,205

% Minority Patients 59% 90% 78%

Hypertension Patients with Controlled

BP <140/90

58% 53% 46%

Diabetic Patients with poorly

controlled glucose (A1c ≥=9.0)

67% 79% 67%

Our PhD program is situated in an ideal area for studying these concerns and we have a number

of nurse scientists devoted to this research (see faculty web pages). Additionally, the university

has an integrated health sciences campus adjacent to the Vidant Medical Center, the largest

regional medical center in the area, with 11 additional community hospitals in the Vidant Health

System. ECU has a Center for Health Disparities (http://www.ecu.edu/healthdisparities/), a

multidisciplinary group of researchers who comprise an East Carolina Diabetes and Obesity

Institute (ECDOI), and the East Carolina Heart Institute, all primary resources for PhD in nursing

students.

In response to its rural location, ECUCON also has the unique feature of being known for the use

of innovative, market‐driven programming to increase access to graduate education in nursing.

ECUCON’s PhD program has two unique delivery features that evidence this commitment: 1)

Three pathways to pursue the degree (BSN‐PhD, MSN‐PhD, and DNP‐PhD) and 2) The use of a

hybrid format offering a blend of face‐to‐face (F2F) and online classes. ECUCON is the first

7

school in the state to offer the DNP‐PhD path and is the only school that uses a hybrid curricular

model to provide access to advanced education in a rural region.

1.4 Describe the external factors that impact the program’s enrollment and market demand of its

graduates based on statewide, national and/or professional studies.

Results from a survey by the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) show that

enrollment in research‐focused nursing doctoral programs has increased by 3.2% with 5,290

students currently enrolled (2015a). The survey also shows that 29.7% of students in research‐

focused nursing doctoral programs identified as a minority and that 9.6% of students in these

programs were men (2015a). At the time of the survey there were 134 research‐focused nursing

doctoral programs in the United States (2015a). Although this increase is welcomed it is not

sufficient to meet the existing demand. There is a national shortage of nursing faculty

particularly those prepared at the research doctorate level. In 2016, the AACN reported that a

survey of Colleges of Nursing found 60% of colleges reported unfilled faculty vacancies.

The major factors contributing to this problem are the rise in the clinical practice doctorate

(DNP), the lack of available funded mentors and the fact that many students are employed full

time (AACN, 2016). The development of the Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) has given nurses

seeking the doctorate a second option and many nurses choose the practice doctorate. While

PhD programs increased by 3.2%, growth in DNP programs had a 26.2% increase during the

same time frame. While the DNP degree helps to advance clinical practice and education, it does

not prepare a graduate that can assume an academic role that includes a commitment to a

fundable research program.

The second problem relates to research mentors. Both across schools and within schools, the

opportunities for students to work alongside funded faculty have varied (NIH, 2014) leaving

some students with little or no exposure to hands on research experience as a student. Without

adequate mentoring during the program, students are less likely to assume a role as an active

researcher after graduation.

Finally, dissatisfaction with the workplace caused by insufficient staffing is leading to increased

stress and causing nurses to leave the profession prior to pursuing advanced education

(Buerhaus, et al. 2005). The nursing shortage is projected to increase from 2009‐2030 and the

shortage will be more intense in the South and West (AACN, 2014). Nurses that do remain in the

profession and choose to advance their education, are often older with family and work

obligations, making the journey to receive an advanced degree more delayed and difficult.

8

2. Enrollment, Degrees, and Student Success

2.1 Describe the program’s enrollment trend over the last seven years to include:

• headcount enrollment (FT/PT ratio), • student diversity, • characteristics of incoming

graduate students (in terms of undergraduate GPAs, admission test scores, number of

complete applications, selectivity, and yield rates), and • characteristics of undergraduate

majors (in terms of high school GPAs, SAT/ACT scores, and undergraduate GPAs).

Student data are managed by the office of Institutional Planning, Assessment and Research

(IPAR) at the University. The following tables represent enrollment trends (headcount, Full‐

time/Part‐time), student diversity (gender, race/ethnicity), and incoming PhD student

characteristics (admission test scores (GRE), application factors (applications, selectivity).

Enrollment trends from 2009‐2016 are represented in the tables below.

Table 3: A. Total enrollments

F 09

Spr 10

F 10

Spr 11

F 11

Spr 12

F 12

Spr 13

F 13

Spr 14

F 14

Spr 15

F 15

Spr 16

Sum *16

New Students

4 0 3 0 5 0 7 0 6 0 4 0 7 0 13

New Transfers

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Continuing 26 30 25 24 21 25 23 27 24 28 24 26 22 26 24

Returning 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

Total 31 31 29 25 28 25 30 29 30 29 28 26 29 27 37

*In 2016 the program changed to a summer admission cycle.

Table 4: B. Full‐time/Part‐Time attendance

Table 5: C. Student diversity from 2009‐2016 is reflected in the tables below.

Gender distribution

F 09

Spr 10

F 10

Spr 11

F 11

Spr 12

F 12

Spr 13

F 13

Spr 14

F 14

Spr 15

F 15

Spr 16

Sum 16

Male 4 4 4 5 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 3 3 3 Female 27 27 25 20 25 22 26 25 26 25 23 21 26 24 34

F 09

Spr 10

F 10

Spr 11

F 11

Spr 12

F 12

Spr 13

F 13

Spr 14

F 14

Spr 15

F 15

Spr 16

Sum 16

Part-Time 30 28 29 25 27 23 29 26 29 28 26 25 28 25 33

Full-Time 1 3 0 0 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 4

9

Table 6: D. Race/Ethnicity distribution

Comparison to State Data: In North Carolina there are approximately 155 students enrolled in

PhD programs (Ketefian & Redman, 2015). Within the state 33% of PhD students identify as a

minority and 11% are men (Ketefian & Redman, 2015). In ECU’s program 10% of students

identify as a minority and 16% of students are male. The number of PhD graduates in the state

has fallen in both 2014 (18) and 2015 (16) from an all‐time high in 2013 (27).

Student Characteristics from 2009‐2016 are reflected in the tables below.

Table 7: Undergraduate GPA average

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

Applied 2.94 3.09 3.18 3.21 2.96 3.39 3.22 3.65 3.40 3.19

Admitted 2.94 3.09 3.28 3.34 2.96 3.39 3.16 3.6 3.52 3.25

GRE admission test scores

Table 8: Quantitative (2009‐2011) 2007-

2008 2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

Applied 435 447 524 539 458 500 497 567 508 567

Admitted 435 442 532 572 458 500 500 570 508 567

F 09

Spr 10

F 10

Spr 11

F 11

Spr 12

F 12

Spr 13

F 13

Spr 14

F 14

Spr 15

F 15

Spr 16

Sum 16

Non-Resident Alien

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Two or More Races

0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 0

Unknown 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Total Other 2 2 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 0 Asian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Asian/Pacific Island

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0

Amer./Alaska Native

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

Black/African Amer.

6 6 6 4 5 4 5 4 3 2 2 1 2 1 2

Hawaiian/Pac. Island

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hispanic 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Total Minority

8 7 6 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 3 2 4 2 3

Total White 21 22 20 19 20 18 21 22 22 22 22 21 23 24 34

10

Table 9: Verbal (2009‐2011)

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

Applied 435 465 481 451 472 415 400 453 515 540

Admitted 435 472 494 490 472 415 395 420 515 540

Table 10: Writing (2009‐2011)

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

Applied 3.8 4.1 3.7 4.0 3.9 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.3 4.0

Admitted 3.8 4.1 3.6 4.4 3.9 3.3 4.0 3.8 3.3 4.0

Table 11: Quantitative (2012‐2016)

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

Applied 144 141 150 146 141

Admitted 144 141 150 148 141

Table 12: Verbal (2012‐2016) 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

Applied 152 147 151 153 148

Admitted 152 147 151 156 148

Table 13: Writing (2012‐2016) 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017

Applied 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.1

Admitted 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.9 3.3

Table 14: Application Factors

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

Applied 11 13 7 8 5 7 7 6 12 20

Admitted 11 11 5 6 5 7 6 5 9 17**

Newly Enrolled

8 10 4 3 5 7 6 4 7 12

Selectivity Rate

100.0% 84.6% 71.4% 75.0% 100.0% 100.0% 85.7% 83.3% 75.0% 85.0%

Yield Rate 72.7% 90.9% 80.0% 50.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 80.0% 77.8% 85.7%

**17 admitted with 3 deferred admissions until summer 2017

11

2.2 Describe the trend regarding the number of degrees conferred each year.

Table 15: Number of degrees conferred annually from 2009‐2016

2004-2005

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

2016-2017

Summer 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Fall 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 3 1 1 0 4* Spring 1 4 1 1 2 1 0 2 2 5 1 4* Total 1 5 1 1 3 3 4 6 4 7 1 5

*Four PhD students have applied for graduation and have scheduled public defenses in the fall of 2016; 4 additional students are scheduled to graduate in the spring of 2017

A dissertation is a highly individualized, mentored process and completion varies accordingly.

Relatively small cohorts result in sporadic degree conferrals as the dissertation time may range

from 1‐3 years based on participant recruitment, student independent progress, institutional

review board approval and other variables in this phase. Significant PhD faculty changes due to

retirements and resignations have also influenced graduation rates. An effort has been made in

the past 2 years to improve degree conferral by pairing students with a research and advising

mentor earlier in their plan of study with an aim to support the student in making progress to

graduation. In addition, we have altered the didactic portion to foster completion of the

dissertation proposal in year three of study, facilitating completing of degree in a timely manner

and maintaining consistent trends.

2.3 For graduate programs, describe the trend regarding completion rates (3 and 5 years for

master’s; 7 and 10 years for doctoral programs) and time‐to‐degree of the students. What

actions have been taken to improve degree completion and time‐to‐degree?

The trends regarding completion rates (7 and 10 years for doctoral programs) and time‐to‐degree

of the student are reflected in the table below.

12

Table 16: Completion Rate Trends (7 and 10 years for doctoral programs)

The desire to promote a reduction in the years required to complete the PhD at ECUCON

remains a priority. To that end, the graduate PhD faculty have annual retreats to review

strategies to improve student completion and reduce time‐to‐degree. From 2009‐2016, a variety

of faculty mentors served as dissertation chairs and worked closely with students to facilitate

their research progress following candidacy examination. Students and faculty communicated

regularly when the student experienced delays and, when required, the chair of the program

requested extensions on behalf of the student from the University Graduate School. In AY 2015‐

2016, based on student opinion surveys, revisions were made that included adoption of a hybrid

curriculum with distance education (Online) courses offered at an increasing frequency as the

student progressed through their studies. Online courses afford flexibility in work/school

schedules and reduce travel time to campus. Previously each student had been appointed a

research mentor in their program of study to help facilitate their progress following candidacy

examination; however, in an effort to improve progress through the curriculum to completed

dissertation, this mentor will now be appointed in the student’s third semester beginning with

the 2016 cohort.

In the summer of 2015, the PhD faculty reviewed student outcomes and developed

recommended curricular and advisement changes to promote earlier completion of the PhD. In

the summer of 2016, the PhD faculty revised the PhD student handbook making a number of

changes to expedite and support student matriculation through the program. This included

requiring completion of the dissertation proposal in the first semester following completion of

required coursework, setting benchmarks for dissertation expectations, and redesigning

dissertation committees such that they also served as the candidacy committee.

2.4 Regarding the program size, is there a justification for expansion or contraction? What actions

have been taken that implement the University’s/College’s strategic initiatives regarding

enrollment management?

A number of external factors impact the PhD program’s need to maintain enrollment and expand

to assure an average census of 35‐40 students. Historically, we have maintained our enrollment

Graduating Year

Total Graduating

Mean Years

Median Years

Mode Years

Standard Deviation Years

2004-2005 1 2.72 2.72 2.72 0.00 2006-2007 5 3.61 3.69 3.69 0.17 2007-2008 1 3.71 3.71 3.71 0.00 2008-2009 1 3.71 3.71 3.71 0.00 2009-2010 3 5.24 4.70 4.70 0.93 2010-2011 3 5.65 5.32 4.93 0.93 2011-2012 4 5.54 5.76 3.32 1.66 2012-2013 6 6.20 5.46 8.31 1.69 2013-2014 4 6.17 5.82 5.72 0.77 2014-2015 7 5.90 5.70 6.97 0.97 2015-2016 1 3.71 3.71 3.71 0.00

13

from a total of 25 to 30 students. We strategically have implemented policies and programs to

affect the timeline and recruitment of students, with a goal of increasing our program size to 35

+/‐ 5.

There is a national shortage of nursing faculty particularly for nurses who have a research

doctorate. In 2016, the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) reported that a

survey of Colleges of Nursing found that 60% of colleges reported unfilled faculty vacancies. The

vacancy rate for Southern US institutions was 9.4%. The majority of the vacancies require an

earned PhD. The North Carolina Nursing Workforce Report (2007) recommended that nursing

doctoral programs be expanded to meet faculty shortage.

Currently, the NC Board of Nursing reports a need for 65‐70 additional faculty members. As

illustrated in following table, only 4% of faculty in associate degree programs hold a doctorate,

and only 23.6% in baccalaureate programs (2016).

Characteristics of Full‐ and Part‐time Faculty in NC Nursing Education Programs as of Oct. 1, 2015

Full-Time Part-

Total

#

%

Bacc

%

Masters

%

Doctorate

% Enrolled in

Grad Total

# %

Bacc %

Masters

%

Doctorate

% Enrolled in

Pre-Licensure

ABSN 60 0.0 31.7 23.3 62 32.3 58.1 8.1 24.2

ADN/ASN 502 7.8 86.9 4.0 18.5 680 44.7 53.1 1.2 17.2

BSN 368 0.5 47.6 23.6 25.5 285 15.4 74.4 6.7 18.6

Dip-PN 138 16.7 80.4 2.2 23.9 165 45.5 52.1 0.6 29.1

Dip-RN 30 0.0 93.3 6.7 20.0 3 0.0 66.7 0.0 0.0

Total 1098 1195

Post-Licensure

RN-BSN 73 1.4 42.5 15.1 42.5 65 0.0 70.8 15.4 87.7

Total 73 65

There are 4 PhD programs in the state of NC but ECU has the only PhD in nursing program in the

eastern part of the state. All colleges and universities are facing a high level of anticipated

retirements and increased demand for new faculty, it is essential that ECUCON assist in the

preparation of those faculty by augmenting enrollment. Additionally, as noted previously, ECU

is located in the poorest area of NC with many challenges in population health. The region

needs PhD prepared scholars to work in the area to address disparity and core health issues

related to cardiovascular health

ECUCON plans to support this PhD enrollment expansion goal through a number of mechanisms.

One innovative educational pathway that is bringing younger faculty and scientists into nursing

is the Baccalaureate to Doctoral program. AACN's latest survey shows that 79 research‐focused

Baccalaureate to Doctoral programs are now available with an additional nine programs under

development (2015c). This path has been implemented in our program. We currently have nine

students enrolled in this path, three traditional BSN graduates and eight Early Assurance

Students who were admitted to the undergraduate Honors BSN program with ensured

admission to our graduate and PhD program. To promote this program, the Director of the PhD

14

program presents information to the BSN students during their research class and a recruitment

fair held at the CON every semester.

The DNP‐PhD pathway is another avenue for increasing enrollment. With the dramatic growth

of DNP programs, many of these graduates are entering the academic workforce where a PhD is

required for tenure. While they have received education on how to address quality issues in the

clinical area many realize as they assume an academic role, that they need additional

preparation as a researcher to be successful in academic roles that includes tenure/promotion.

Student Success

2.5 What is the 3‐year trend regarding D/F/W rates in 1000‐ and 2000‐level courses?

Where appropriate, how do the D/F/W rates in face‐to‐face courses compare to those in

online courses? What has the program done to address the courses with high D/F/W rates?

This question addresses undergraduate level courses and is not relevant for a PhD program.

2.6 What is the job placement rate of the graduates? Does it meet faculty expectations?

PhD alumni are employed in a number of critical nursing roles. Of the 36 alumni, 53% (19) are

employed as faculty, including Deans, Chairs and Directors; 33% are in nursing administration

roles, including CNOs, directors of Quality and Magnet programs and on the Board of Nursing;

and 14% are in Clinical Practice, including Nurse Practitioners and Directors of Clinical Research.

It is particularly noteworthy that of the 19 PhD graduates in faculty roles, all but one of those

are working in eastern NC.

2.7 If applicable, what is the licensure pass rate of the graduates? Does it meet faculty

expectations?

Not Applicable

2.8 What actions has the program taken over the past seven years to improve student success?

A number of actions have been taken over the last 7 years to promote student success in the

PhD program. These included curricular revisions, increased faculty mentoring, exposure to

national research scientists in nursing, and more structured guidelines and expectations for

matriculation through the program.

Strategic Action #1 ‐ Curricular Revisions:

In the fall of 2013, the curriculum was revised to improve student success. Three seminars

structured as three one‐hour classes over the first three semesters of the program, were added.

These seminars focused on building core skills of successful student researchers including how

to work on interdisciplinary teams and how to disseminate findings. The goal was to mentor the

socialization of the students into the role of nurse scientists. A grant writing course was also

added as a summer online class. These changes were well received by students and in 2014 and

2015 more student abstracts and publications were presented and accepted than any previous

year. In 2015, two PhD students received grants to support their research.

15

While these seminars and the grant course enhanced the success of our students, the

placement within the curriculum did not facilitate acquisition of these student learning

outcomes early enough in the program. Thus, in the 2015‐2016 academic year the 3 seminar

classes were combined and placed into one course, offered in the summer of the admission

year. Admission into the PhD program was moved from the fall to the summer. First year

reviews of the summer class were outstanding. The grant‐writing course was moved to the fall,

placing it in the curriculum so that students could write a grant to fund dissertation research.

An additional Nursing Scholarship and Discovery II one‐hour seminar was added in the final

semester during which candidacy exams would be given. This course provides an opportunity

for the research mentor to work with the student to evaluate areas of weakness prior to the

exam.

Strategic Action #2 ‐ Increased Availability of Research Faculty Mentoring:

Over the past five years faculty retirements and turnover resulted in a reduction in the number

of faculty mentors and subsequent delays for students as they were required to find new

dissertation chairs. Prior to 2015 there were few faculty considered to be solely PhD teaching

faculty; rather PhD prepared faculty from both undergraduate and graduate departments

taught part‐time in the program. The statistician and two professors were the only consistent

faculty teaching in the program. As enrollment in the PhD program grew, it became evident that

a core group of faculty needed to be assigned to work together to teach and mentor students.

It was also clear that research foci needed to be determined and research faculty recruited to

support those research areas.

The first step in addressing these concerns began with the hiring of a new Associate Dean for

Research and Scholarship and the designation of a new program director in 2013‐2014. Based

on student projections and with input from the new director and faculty teaching in the PhD

program, a white paper was developed and presented to the Dean. This paper was followed

with a meeting to clarify goals and mission. Increasing the number of tenured faculty and the

amount of research these faculty supported was also prioritized in the CON strategic plan. The

Associate Dean and PhD Program Director reviewed organizational alignment of PhD programs

throughout the US and made recommendations to the Dean. The altered CON organizational

structure, approved with code revision in 2016, places the PhD program in the newly created

Department of Nursing Science with reporting responsibilities to the Associate Dean for

Research, thus facilitating an overall strengthening of the research program to enhance the

scholarly environment for students. This department was designed for faculty who desire a

research assignment of 40% or greater in their workload. In the 2015‐16 AY the Dean also

designated 3 FTEs as targeted hires for research. Three start‐up packages were provided for

these faculty in 2016. In addition, two tenure track faculty with research agendas falling within

the 2 foci are being mentored to teach in the PhD program, and plans are in place to mentor and

transition 2 more to the department in the next 2 years.

Another task to improve student mentoring by faculty was to develop a goal of having more

focused and funded areas of research within the CON. This began by evaluating existing

research in the college and the potential for research given the CON collaboration with Centers

and Institutes at ECU. Two foci were prioritized: bio‐behavioral research and systems science.

16

Recruitment for the new FTEs hired in 2016 included consideration of the applicant’s ability to

contribute to this two‐fold research mission.

Strategic Action #3 – Student Exposure to National Nursing Scientists

A third avenue for increasing mentoring of PhD students involved providing programmatic

opportunities for students to have contact with the leading nurse scientists in the country.

These opportunities include an annual Collaborative Research Day and Seigfried Lowin

lectureship. Students have had group and one on one meetings with these scientists. Past

scientists who were invited speakers at these research conferences include Drs. Bernadette

Melnyk, Jean McSweeney, Cindy Munro, Antonia Villarruel, and Jean Watson. The Health

Science Division also has a regular event, the Research Mingle, with speakers and opportunities

for students to collaborate with scientists across the health sciences campus in an informal

setting. The PhD nursing students attend these programs regularly and have commented on the

importance of these sessions in advancing their research career.

Student stipends to attend the regional research conference, the Southern Nursing Research

Society (SNRS) meeting, have been prioritized for funding. Since beginning the stipends two

years ago, more than 20 PhD students have attended the conference. This has also resulted in

one student becoming an officer in the Doctoral Student Committee and 2 students receiving

the top 10 abstract designation.

Finally, we have increased the number of Research Assistant opportunities with benefits to

foster full time enrollment and opportunities to enhance their research skills. As a result, the

program currently has 4 full time students, the most in the history of the school.

Strategic Action #4 – Structured Guidelines for Matriculation through the Program

The fourth strategic initiative involved changes in PhD policies and procedures. We have

designed a more definitive structure for progression through the program. For example, we

have moved the determination of the dissertation committee earlier in the trajectory and have

this committee also serve as the preliminary exam committee.

Secondly, a research mentor must be selected by the end of year one. This mentor, targeted to

become the student’s dissertation chair, serves as the student advisor assisting with selection of

electives and dissertation committee members.

Thirdly, academic progression is monitored by the research mentor/advisor to assure

achievement of program benchmarks (see Appendix A). Post‐candidacy students co‐create a

dissertation timeline and plan with the research mentor and determination of satisfactory

performance is based on achievement of these benchmarks.

2.9 Action Plans: What actions does the program plan to take in the next seven years to increase

enrollment and student success? What resources are needed?

Efforts to increase/maintain enrollment and assure student success over the next seven years

include the following:

17

Recruiting nurse scientists with fundable research agendas (3 recruited in 2016) to mentor

PhD students.

Transitioning the curriculum from 100% face to face (F2F) to a hybrid 50% online and 50%

F2F

Introducing and growing innovative pathways: Early Assurance Program (EAP) for Honors

Undergraduate Students, BSN‐PhD, and DNP‐PhD.

Requiring all faculty working with PhD students to attend a program orientation and annual

updates session to better support student success (the first one was offered in fall of 2016).

This will increase the pool of research mentors available to PhD student while assuring

compliance with program guidelines.

Implementing dissertation contracting that includes completion of the dissertation proposal

in the first semester after coursework concludes.

Prioritizing recruitment in regional health systems and community college nursing programs

to increase student diversity and enrollment.

Developing an online information webinar for prospective students to learn more about the

ECUCON PhD program.

Advocating for more tuition remission and graduate assistantships to support young, BSN‐

PhD students to attend school full time.

o Actively employing a succession plan for faculty to provide seamless transition when

there is a retirement or attrition.

3. Curriculum, Learning Outcomes and Student Satisfaction

Provide an interpretation of assessment findings and other relevant data about the curriculum

and quality of student learning in each program being reviewed. Focus on interpretation of

data, use of results, and program improvements.

Curriculum Analysis

Degree requirements can be found at http://www.ecu.edu/cs‐dhs/nursing/phd_program_paths.cfm.

3.1 Based on degree requirements and the updated curriculum map, describe how course

sequences, including prerequisites, are used to introduce and reinforce student learning prior

to students being assessed.

The curriculum map illustrating alignment of student learning outcomes to courses in the

curriculum and that maps introduction and reinforcement of learning outcomes can be found in

Appendix B. At the 2016 summer retreat, the PhD faculty developed benchmarks for PhD

student learning. This included determining developmental expectations by year and

incorporating those expectations into course assignments. In particular, writing skill

development was addressed because this has been a challenge to students and faculty. Courses

and expectations build upon knowledge. For example, the first semester provides the

philosophical foundations for both methods classes. The methods classes occur prior to the

grant‐writing course.

18

3.2 Describe the process the program uses to ensure the curriculum is up‐to‐date. Describe any

innovative approaches in the curriculum.

One time per year, for the last 3 years, the PhD faculty group have met for a 3 day retreat

focused on curriculum and teaching/mentoring methods. The analysis of curriculum and

teaching/mentoring methods are guided by 1) candidacy exam student outcomes, 2) student

annual evaluations and course feedback, and 3) publications and presentations on best practices

in research‐focused PhD programs. The program director attends the AACN doctoral conference

each year and several PhD faculty participate in the State of the Science conference and events

sponsored by the National institute of Nursing Research (NINR) to obtain cutting edge research

ideas and directions. These data inform courses, assignments, and outcomes assessed.

Our faculty are committed to providing both the support and structure necessary to prepare

students for scholarly writing as a nurse scientist. One innovation in our program is the Writing

and Learning Community. Dr. Deby Tyndall is currently collaborating with interdisciplinary

colleagues within the University Writing Program (UWP) to develop an innovative Writing and

Learning Community (WLC) within the PhD curriculum. Dr. Tyndall has spent the last six years

examining writing development in nursing students and nurses in practice. During her recent

doctoral studies, she conducted research aimed to understand scholarly writing in nursing

students and nurses and examine the impact of professional development on teachers of

writing. Her teaching background includes instruction of Writing Intensive (WI) courses at the

undergraduate level and integrating Writing across the Curriculum (WAC) and Writing in the

Discipline (WID) concepts into the nursing curriculum. As part of her own professional

development, she had attended two University WAC Academies and various workshops on using

metacognitive activities to promote reflective writing, transfer of writing skills, and threshold

concepts in writing. As a recent graduate of the PhD in Nursing Program, Dr. Tyndall offers a

unique perspective on how WAC and WID concepts can be integrated into the curriculum.

Research shows that doctoral‐level students experience similar writing challenges when

compared to undergraduate and graduate students (Gazza, Shellenbarger, & Hunker, 2013;

Fauchald & Bastian, 2015; Shirey, 2013) and exposure to advanced genres may exacerbate these

challenges (Gimenez, 2008). During the 2016‐2017 academic year, Dr. Tyndall is consulting with

faculty, students, and interdisciplinary colleagues to develop both a conceptual model and

academic elements to support the PhD Writing and Learning Community. The WLC will include

elements such as assessment of student writing, writing workshops, peer review, collaborative

writing opportunities, mentoring, and program evaluation. In addition, the WLC will serve to

support current and ongoing conversations about advanced genres (i.e. grant writing, writing for

publication) required for doctoral education and faculty development to support teaching of

writing.

Another innovation was to add a course in the new curriculum that will enable faculty flexibility

to make time sensitive changes to adapt to current science and needs. For example, this course

was developed based on the current need for students to understand the influence of genetics

and precision medicine on nursing science. We anticipate that other timely issues will be

included in this course such as translational science, symptom science, big data, predictive

analytics, and other evolving topics.

19

Finally, we structured the first directed research to apply knowledge from the statistical courses

to complete a secondary analysis leading to a data‐based publication. This decision was made

using student and faculty feedback on the gap between these courses and using the knowledge

in their dissertation work.

Student Learning Outcomes Assessment

3.3 Based on learning outcomes assessment reports/data, what are the identified strengths and

weaknesses in student learning outcomes?

The assessment of student learning is central to the PhD in nursing program. Multiple resources

are used to identify areas of strength and needed improvement including annual curricular

review, student, faculty and alumni input, graduation and retention data, progression data, and

the university Graduate Student Exit Surveys (PhD). While in place from the beginning of the

program in 2002, the assessment process has matured as evidenced by the development of

more rigorous outcome based assessment of student learning plans as reported in TracDat

(Appendix C).

Review of the assessment of student learning plans from 2009 to 2015 identified two areas in

need of improvement; knowledge/theory development, and scholarship. Both were approached

through curricular and pedagogical changes with improvement noted over the course of several

years. While not at the level desired, both have become increasing areas of strength among our

students.

Faculty re‐sequenced course progression to teach NURS 8260 State of the Science in second

semester, and NURS 8225 Knowledge Development in third semester, thus placing literature

review prior to theory development. Additionally, in 2015‐2016 faculty created candidacy exam

questions that allowed the student to demonstrate knowledge development and integration

according to their area of interest. A new rubric was developed and piloted to measure the

success of this approach. One hundred percent of students passed the knowledge integration

candidacy exam question with only two requiring a re‐write leading to success. Revisions to

assignments with stronger, specific objectives to support knowledge integration have been

woven into the newly revised curriculum which was implemented in fall 2016.

Dissemination of new knowledge is a priority of the PhD program. Prior to 2015 limited faculty

FTE lines were classified as research faculty which contributed to limited opportunities for

directed research and development of scholarly products. In response, faculty developed a list

of abstract submission and conference dates which were distributed to students with follow‐up

by email for abstract due dates. Interprofessional research opportunities at ECU including the

Center for Health Care Disparity and Agromedicine Institute were explored in NURS 8201

Seminar. In 2015‐2016 faculty required all PhD students, with faculty mentoring, to submit their

work for podium, poster or manuscript presentations by the third year, or 6th semester. Seventy

one percent of students submitted research findings for dissemination which did not meet the

criterion for success of 80%. During the faculty retreat, faculty determined that the students’

lacked adequate mentorship in the dissemination process and will now assign a research mentor

at the end of year one to assist students with selection of peer reviewed venues for submission

of their work.

20

3.4 Where applicable, are there any significant differences in student outcomes in face‐to‐face

and online programs?

The PhD in Nursing has been offered in a face‐to‐face format since 2002. A hybrid curriculum was

developed and approved in AY 2015‐2016 with implementation in fall of 2016. At this time there

is no data comparing the two methods of delivery.

3.5 What decisions have been made and what changes have been instituted on the basis of on‐

going assessments (e.g. curricular, or pedagogical changes, faculty, instructional facilities,

student support, funding priorities, the assessment procedure – including objectives and

outcomes and methods of gathering and analyzing data, etc.)?

Section 3.3 highlights some of the pedagogical and curricular changes implemented over the

past seven years to improve student outcomes in theory and knowledge integration, and

scholarship.

Based on continued assessment and student and faculty input, a major curriculum revision,

including development of new PhD terminal objectives was undertaken in 2015‐2016.

Implemented in summer 2016, the program delivery method will transition from face‐to‐face to

a hybrid format. Implementation of the hybrid format also meets Unit Objective 3.2.1 of the

CON strategic plan, “Develop innovative, market‐driven graduate programs to increase access to

doctoral education in nursing.

Faculty, working with the Office of Program Evaluation and IPAR developed a new assessment

plan utilizing the new terminal objectives as student learning outcomes. Curriculum was

mapped to indicate where key concepts were introduced, reinforced and assessed.

Faculty review of progression data indicated that many post‐candidacy students have been

delayed in developing a dissertation proposal for submission. Five dissertations were completed

in spring 2015 resulting in more faculty available to advise and mentor students. Faculty have

implemented a new policy for 2016‐2017 that will require students to complete their

dissertation proposal within 1 semester after concluding required coursework. Additionally,

faculty developed a matrix of expected competencies/products for each year of work that

facilitates students’ timely progression through the program. This matrix has been in included in

the newly revised PhD student handbook.

Three new tenured/tenure track faculty have been hired for the PhD program and two

transferred from other departments within the college.

3.6 How effective were changes?

Implemented changes have been very successful as evidenced by improved student learning,

function, and progress in the program.

Student Satisfaction

To support this section, review the student survey data such as the Graduating Senior Survey

And Graduate Student Exit Survey, and program‐level employer/alumni surveys.

21

3.7 How satisfied are graduating students with the program?

Overall, PhD students are very satisfied with their doctoral education as reported in the Graduate

Student Exit Survey. A total of 15 doctoral students completed the graduate student exit survey for AYs

2011‐2016. Their combined responses are displayed below:

Table 17: PhD Graduates 2011‐12 – 2015‐16

Area of Evaluation Evaluation Item % Responding

“Excellent” or “Good”

Faculty Contributions

Overall satisfaction with instruction 86.7%

Academic Advising Overall satisfaction with advising services 80.0%

Technology Services Overall satisfaction with technology services 100%

Knowledge, Skills and Personal Growth

Contribution of education toward: Knowledge in your program

100%

Contribution of education toward: Problem solving skills

93.3%

Contribution of education toward: Technical skills 100%

Contribution of education toward: Communication skills

100%

Contribution of education toward: Personal development

93.3%

Conclusions All things considered, how would you evaluate the quality of instruction in your program?

93.3%

Conclusions If you could start again, would you still choose to enroll in this program?

73.3%

3.8 How do graduating students/alumni evaluate the knowledge and skills they have acquired in

the program?

Graduating students and alumni evaluate the knowledge and skills they have acquired in the

program by answering the corresponding item on the Graduate Student Exit Survey. The Survey

is administered each semester by IPAR. The results of two survey cycles are reported in the table

on the next page.

22

Table 18: Knowledge, Skills and Personal Growth

AY 2010‐2014 AY 2011‐2016

Contribution of education toward:

(n=14) (n=15)

Knowledge 100% 100%

Problem‐solving skills 92.2% 93.3%

Technical skills 100% 100%

Communication skills 100% 100%

Personal development 92.2% 93.3%

3.9 How do employers evaluate the graduates’ knowledge and skills?

The CON has an Advisory Board designed to provide input on programs and graduates of the

college. Members from the community serving on the Advisory Board include nurse executive

leaders, nurse managers and directors of nursing from hospitals, public health departments and

the Eastern Area Health Education Consortium (EAHEC). The Dean of the CON and key

administrators from the CON meet annually with the Advisory Board to present an update on

CON activities. The members are invited to provide their evaluation of the graduates’ knowledge

and skills, including doctoral graduates. For the majority of the past seven years, the Advisory

Board provided verbal feedback to the CON; however, in 2016, the Advisory Board was

electronically surveyed to ask specifically about value of the doctorally‐prepared nurse and the

doctoral graduates of the CON in meeting the needs of working nurses in Eastern NC. All

members of the board responded yes.

3.10 What actions has the program taken to improve student support, services, and satisfaction?

In the spring of 2016, recognizing that a new curriculum would be implemented in the summer,

the program queried students enrolled in the ECU Nursing PhD program to investigate their

experience and thoughts about the program. The goal was to get an evaluation prior to the new

curriculum implementation such that a later post‐implementation survey could be undertaken.

Of the 25 enrolled PhD students, 19 responded (73%). Placement in the program for the

students who completed the survey can be seen in Table 1.

Table 19: Description of Respondents

Stage in program

Pre‐candidacy 10 53%

Admitted to candidacy 7 37%

Did not answer 2 10%

The following tables present the answers to additional elements evaluated in the PhD student

survey for spring 2016. In Table 20 through Table 23, N=19 for all questions unless otherwise

noted. In Table 20 each category was rated on a 4‐point scale (1=not at all, 2=a little,

3=moderate, 4=very). The means all four categories fell between 3 and 4. Diversity received the

lowest score and safety received the highest score. Of note, 11 students indicated the ECU CON

was very (4) competitive, very (4) welcoming, and 14 indicated it is very (4) safe.

23

Table 20: Impression of ECU Nursing Community (n=18)

Mean

(Range)

Safe 3.72 (2‐4)

Welcoming 3.61 (2‐4)

Competitive 3.39 (2‐4)

Diverse 3.06 (1‐4)

In Table 3 through 5, students were asked to rate their ECU CON experience on a 5 point scale

(1=poor; 5=excellent). Results can be seen below. Mean scores for all three questions were near

4, indicating that overall students had Very Good academic, student life, and overall experiences

with the school.

Table 21: Overall Rating ECU College of Nursing Experience

Mean

(Range)

Your academic experience at ECU College of Nursing 4.00 (2‐5)

Your student life experience at ECU College of Nursing 3.95 (2‐5)

Your overall experience at ECU College of Nursing 4.05 (2‐5)

Students evaluated the quality of various support services available to PhD students (Table 4).

Mean scores for the library, electronic research resources, and the PhD program office were

above 4. The majority of resources had a mean score between 3 and 4 with only one support

service, student services support for my record tracker, falling below 3 (good).

Table 22: Quality of Support and Services

Mean

(Range)

Financial support provided by ECU during the Academic Year

(N=17)

3.53 (1‐5)

Library and electronic research resources 4.37 (3‐5)

Information technology resources 4.00 (2‐5)

Student Services Support for My Record Tracker 2.90 (1‐5)

Counseling & Psychological Services (CAPS) (N=11) 3.8 (3‐4)

IRB Office (N=17) 3.76 (3‐5)

PhD Program Office (N=17) 4.24 (3‐5)

The Writing Center (N=13) 3.85 (3‐5)

New Graduate Student Orientation (N=17) 3.59 (3‐5)

Several quality elements of the PhD program are rated in Table 5. The lowest mean for these

questions was 3.50 (opportunity to collaborate across disciplines) and the highest mean was

4.05 (student development as a scholar).

24

Table 23: Rating of ECU PhD Program Areas

Mean

(Range)

Quality of the curriculum 3.68 (2‐5)

Quality of the PhD teaching faculty 3.89 (2‐5)

Quality of academic advising and guidance 3.79 (1‐5)

Opportunity to collaborate across disciplines (N=18) 3.50 (1‐5)

Your development as a scholar 4.05 (2‐5)

Students in the pre‐candidacy phase of the program answered questions about the

opportunities and resources available to pre‐candidacy students (n=12). Students were asked to

indicate whether or not they participated or received the resource. Those who utilized a

resource were asked to rate the effectiveness of this resource. In Table 24 the effectiveness of

each resource was rated on a 5‐point scale (1=very ineffective to 5=very effective). Almost all

students used the resources that were available with the exception of early research

opportunities, where only 8 of 12 students participated. The mean effectiveness rating for two

resources, written expectations about academic requirements and early research opportunities,

were above 4 (somewhat effective). The mean for all other resources fell between 3 and 4.

Organized exposure to faculty received the lowest mean effectiveness rating of 3.40.

Table 24: Pre‐candidacy Opportunities and Resources

Resource

Effectiveness

Mean (Range)

Not

Available

Available

But Did Not

Participate

Participated

Orientation to help you understand the

process of completing your graduate

degree

1 0 11 3.73

(2‐5)

Written expectations about academic

requirements and expected progress in

your program

0 0 12 4.18

(2‐5)

Organized exposure to faculty and their

current research interests

1 0 11 3.40

(2‐5)

Early research opportunities 1 3 8 4.13

(1‐5)

An annual Advisor and/or other faculty

to assess academic progress

1 0 11 3.80

(1‐5)

All PhD students were asked to identify the current sources of helpful advice or assistance with

several tasks. Table 25 shows the number of students who used each source of advice for the

described task. Students utilized faculty as the main source of advice for all tasks except

25

navigating the systems and culture of graduate education. For this task students most

frequently endorsed going to other students or sources for advice or assistance.

Table 25: Number of Students Who Utilized Sources of Advice

Faculty Staff Students/

Other

Not

Applicable

Navigating the systems and culture of

graduate education

11 8 14 1

Selecting courses 16 5 5 2

Preparing for candidacy exam 11 2 5 6

Developing your dissertation topic 19 2 11 0

Conducting your dissertation research 11 1 3 8

Writing and revising your dissertation 9 0 4 9

Several questions were asked about advising and mentoring. The data in Table 26 show the

number of faculty mentors students have at ECU. In this program half of the students report

having 1 to 2 mentors and half report having 3 or more mentors. The data in Table 27 show how

often PhD students have contact with their primary academic advisor. Students were asked if

the frequency of contact with the primary academic advisor was sufficient and results are

presented in Table 28.

Table 26: Number of Faculty Mentors

Number of

Students

None 0

1 Mentor 2

2 Mentors 7

3 Mentors 5

4 or More 5

Table 27: Student Contact with Primary Academic Advisor

Number of

Students

Weekly or More Often 5

Twice a Month 5

Monthly 2

2‐3 Times Per Term 4

Once Per Term 1

Once Per Year 2

Less than Yearly 0

26

Table 28: Amount of Contact with Primary Academic Advisor

Number of

Students

Too Much Contact 0

Just Right 14

Not Enough Contact 4

Unsure 1

All students in all phases of the program rated the performance of their academic advisor or

dissertation chair. Several statements were given describing typical behaviors of advisors with

students rating how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the statement. Answers ranged from

1(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) with the majority of students agreeing with most

statements. Agreeing with the statements reflects a positive relationship with the academic

advisor. The frequency of each response is shown in Table 29.

Table 29: Description of Dissertation and Academic Advisor

Strongly

Disagree

Generally

Disagree

Neither

Agree nor

Disagree

Generally

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Discusses my research with me on a

regular basis

1 3 2 0 13

Gives me constructive feedback on

my work

2 1 2 1 13

Clearly states expectations for my

academic progress

1 1 1 6 10

Has reasonable expectations for my

academic progress

1 0 3 5 10

Promotes my professional

development

1 0 1 3 14

Table 30 shows the number of students who report receiving support from an academic advisor

in a variety of areas. The majority of students report they received assistance using standards

for academic writing (n=12), avoiding plagiarism (n=10), and understanding professional

research ethics (n=16). The majority of students report they did not receive support for writing

grants (n=12), preparing articles for publication (n=12), communicating effectively in

presentations (n=11), and making plans for after graduation (n=11). Additionally students were

asked to rate how helpful they found the assistance on a scale from 1 (not at all helpful) to 4

(very helpful). Students rated receiving support for the standards of academic and professional

writing as the most helpful type of support and preparing manuscripts as the least helpful. All

types of assistance and support, however, had an overall score above 3.

27

Table 30: Assistance or Support from Academic Advisor

Received

Support

Helpfulness

Yes No

Using standards for academic or professional writing in my field 12 7 3.75

Avoiding plagiarism and other violations of the standards of

academic integrity

10 9 3.80

Understanding the professional research ethics in my field 16 3 3.67

Writing grant or fellowship proposals 7 12 3.33

Preparing articles for publication 7 12 3.17

Communicating effectively in presentations 8 11 3.43

Planning for a post‐graduation 3 16 3.67

At this time, eight students in the program have formed a dissertation committee. Of students

who have formed a committee, only four report meeting more than once per term with the

committee. One student reported their committee did not meet at all within the past year.

Furthermore, six students reported the amount of contact with the dissertation committee was

“just right’” and 6 students felt the committee was very effective in moving the program of

study forward (Table 31).

Table 31: Dissertation Committee

Dissertation Committee

Yes 8

No 10

Frequency of Committee Meeting

More than once per term 4

Once each term 2

Once during the year 0

Did not meet in past year 1

Does not meet as a group 1

Amount of Contact

Too much contact 0

Just right 6

Not enough 0

Not sure 2

Effectiveness of Committee in Moving Program of Study Forward

Very ineffective 0

Somewhat ineffective 0

Neither ineffective or effective 2

Somewhat effective 0

Very effective 6

28

Several positive and negative statements about the PhD program were rated on a scale from 1

(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Students in the program reported feeling respected

regardless of gender (M=4.89), race (M=4.83), or citizenship (M=4.89) and felt that faculty

respected students in the program (M=4.53). Statements with the lowest scores were: 1) I have

to work harder than some of my peers to be perceived as a legitimate scholar (M=2.89), and 2) I

feel excluded from informal networks in my program (M=2.26). The lower rating on these two

items may reflect poor wording of the question, as students are reporting high satisfaction with

items relating to respect, value of scholarship, collegial relationships, and responsiveness of

faculty. Table 32 illustrates that the mean score for the majority of statements was over 4

(generally agree).

Table 32: Statements about PhD Program

Mean

Students in my program are treated with respect by faculty 4.53

My peers value my research/scholarship 4.37

I have to work harder than some of my peers to be perceived as a legitimate scholar 2.89

My relationships and interactions with faculty are positive 4.42

I have the resources I need to succeed 4.32

My program is responsive to student concerns 4.21

Financial support for students in my program is distributed fairly 3.40

My program's procedures are fair and equitable to all 4.00

Students in my program are collegial 4.33

I feel excluded from informal networks in my program 2.26

I am comfortable voicing my feelings and opinions in front of others in my program 4.32

Students are respected here regardless of race or ethnicity 4.83

Students are respected here regardless of gender 4.89

Students are respected here regardless of citizenship or country of origin 4.89

Multiple obstacles were assessed to determine which ones were the most problematic for

students (Table 33). The most commonly reported major obstacle was family obligations (n=8).

The most commonly reported minor obstacles were self‐confidence (n=6) and time

management (n=6). Other minor obstacles noted by students were availability of faculty (n=5),

family obligations (n=5), and insufficient financial support (n=5).

In addition to the obstacles specifically listed in the survey, students were able to voice other

concerns and obstacles they felt were a problem during the previous academic year. Additional

obstacles listed were: 1) undergraduate model of teaching‐‐not allowing students to explore the

literature for a given topic, 2) lack of guidance for dissertation ideas/timing/electives, and 3)

faculty not taking into consideration work obligations when making last minute assignments.

29

Table 33: Obstacles to Academic Progress

Not an

Obstacle

Minor

Obstacle

Major

Obstacle

Not

Applicable

Program structure or requirements 13 3 2 0

Availability of faculty 11 5 3 0

Relationship with advisor 15 2 1 0

Competition among your peers 15 3 0 0

Family obligations 6 5 8 0

Insufficient financial support 11 5 3 0

Immigration laws and regulations 10 0 0 0

Physical and/or mental health issues 11 3 2 0

Academic or social isolation 13 3 1 0

Your self‐confidence 10 6 3 0

Time management difficulties 10 6 3 0

Other obstacles 1 1 1 0

Table 34 shows a summary of achievements accomplished by PhD students within the previous

academic year and since they began the program. The majority of students noted they had

attended a professional conference within the past year (n=12) and since they started the

program (n=8). Most students attended SNRS in the previous year. Also of note, six students

report presenting a paper or poster in the past year and eight report receiving travel funds.

Furthermore, four students noted they had papers accepted for publication.

Table 34: Student Career Development

In the Past Year Since Starting Program

Attend Professional Conference 8 12

Present Paper or Poster 2 6

Received a Travel Grant 5 8

Have Publications Under Review 1 2

Had Publications Accepted for Publication 1 4

Wrote or Assisted with Grant Proposal 2 4

Future employment goals were assessed. Students indicated where they anticipated to be

employed upon graduation; comparing aspirations when they entered the program with their

current anticipations. Table 35 is a summary of findings. When they entered the program the

majority of students indicated they anticipated a future in academia (n=14). Currently more

students endorsed a future in academia (n=17).

Table 35: Students Anticipated Employment

Entered Program Current

Academia 14 17

Business, Industry, Self‐Employment 4 1

Government, Non‐profit 1 1

Other 0 0

30

Students were also asked to rate to what extent the program was preparing them for the future

chosen career path. Results are presented in Table 36. Ten students indicated they generally

agree the ECU program provides adequate preparation for a future career and six students

indicate they strongly agree that the ECU program provides adequate preparation. Three

students indicate they generally or strongly disagree that the program provides appropriate

preparation for a future career.

Table 36: Feel Prepared for Career

Number of

Students

Strongly Disagree 2

Generally Disagree 1

Neither Agree nor Disagree 0

Generally Agree 10

Strongly Agree 6

Of the students who completed this survey, 18 indicated they were very likely to finish the

program and 12 indicated they would definitely pursue a PhD if they could start all over again.

The majority of students (n=11) would recommend ECU to others (Table 37).

Table 37: Revisiting Graduate Studies

Number of Students

How likely are you to stay in your program until you graduate

Very unlikely 0

Somewhat unlikely 0

Not sure 0

Somewhat likely 1

Very likely 18

If you could start all over again, would you choose to pursue a PhD

Definitely not 0

Probably not 0

Maybe 3

Probably 4

Definitely 12

Would you recommend ECU

Definitely not 0

Probably not 0

Maybe 2

Probably 5

Definitely 11

31

4. Strength of Faculty: Teaching, research and scholarship

4.1 Faculty Profile: describe the current faculty affiliated with the department (e.g., percent

full‐ versus part‐time, diversity, percent with terminal degree, tenure status, etc.).

In the past the statistician, the Associate Dean for Research & Scholarship, and the PhD program

director were the only faculty considered to be solely devoted to the PhD program. As the

program has grown, the need for consistent and dedicated researchers and teachers has

emerged. Therefore, in the spring of 2016 the Unit Code was revised to create a Department of

Nursing Science that houses the PhD program, the Office of Research and Scholarship and the

East Carolina Center for Nursing Leadership. While the CON has 21 tenured and 10 tenure‐track

faculty, the new Nursing Science Department houses six tenured and four tenure‐track graduate

faculty who focus at least 40% of their time generating research and mentoring/teaching PhD

students. A number of additional faculty in the Advanced Nursing Practice and Education

Department serve as committee chairs and members. Dissertation committee chairs serve as

the advisor for the student.

Appendix D describes current faculty affiliated with the PhD program, the percent full versus

part‐time, diversity, % with terminal degree, rank, and tenure status.

4.2 Faculty Resources: Does the department have the number and type of faculty to achieve its

goals?

The AACN Pathways to Excellence (2010) recommends that each faculty member should serve

as the major adviser/chair for a limited number of students (e.g., 3‐5 students). Currently there

are 17 post‐candidacy students being advised by 5 faculty members. While this ratio is high, we

are making significant additions to our faculty to affect these ratios. There are an additional 20

students whose advisement the program director and various Department of Nursing Science

faculty manage. All DNP‐PhD students are advised by one PhD faculty member and all BSN‐PhD

students are advised by another PhD faculty member.

4.3 What actions has the department taken to recruit and retain highly qualified, diverse faculty?

Recruitment and retention of highly qualified, diverse faculty is a major challenge for the

program. Fortunately, after a nationwide search and targeted recruitment, we hired three

young Assistant Professors to join the department. A tenured professor, who is a senior

scientist, was also recruited. Two of the department’s faculty are under review to move from

associate professor to professor in 2017. The program director has also developed an

orientation for graduate faculty interested in working with PhD students and teaching in the

program. Faculty who attended this fall 2016 orientation as well as faculty residing in the

Department of Nursing Science are noted in Appendix D. Moving forward, the program’s faculty

recruitment strategy will be a blend of “grow our own” and targeted recruitment, particularly

post‐doctoral programs.

32

Analysis of Teaching

4.4 Describe the trend in student credit hour production in the department over the past seven

years, for both Distance Education and campus courses, highlighting the department’s

contribution to the Foundations Curriculum and other degree programs.

Table 38: Student Credit Hour Production

ACADEMIC

YEAR

ACADEMIC PERIOD Student

Credit Hour

Percent

change (+/‐)

2009 200980 Fall 2009 142

201030 Spring 2010 128

201040 1st Summer 2010 3

201050 11‐Week Summer 2010 27

201060 2nd Summer 2010 6

TOTAL 306

2010 201080 Fall 2010 125

201130 Spring 2011 98

201140 1st Summer 2011 1

201150 11‐Week Summer 2011 4

TOTAL 228 ‐25%

2011 201180 Fall 2011 101

201230 Spring 2012 101

201240 1st Summer 2012 6

201250 11 Week Summer 2012 22

201260 2nd Summer 2012 5

TOTAL 235 +3%

2012 201280 Fall 2012 127

201330 Spring 2013 123

201350 11 Week Summer 2013 19

TOTAL 269 +14%

2013 201380 Fall 2013 122

201430 Spring 2014 130

201440 1st Summer 2014 1

201450 11 Week Summer 2014 22

TOTAL 275 +2%

2014 201480 Fall 2014 94

201530 Spring 2015 109

201550 11 Week Summer 2015 3

201560 2nd Summer 2015 13

TOTAL 219 ‐20%

2015 201680 Fall 2015 106

201630 Spring 2016 113

201650 11 Week Summer 2016 15

TOTAL 234 +7%

33

It should be noted that fluctuation in the generation of student credit hours varies by the

number of students enrolled. Some students complete their final dissertation work in a single, 6

week summer session or during the regular semester; therefore the credit hours may appear

low in a single summer session. The program offers coursework in the summer sessions as part

of the regular curriculum as well as the option to enroll and work on dissertation hours (typically

1‐6 hours of credit), electives, and/or directed research.

4. Strength of Faculty: Teaching, Research and Scholarship

4.5 Based on the Delaware Study data, what is the general teaching load of the department

faculty? What has the department done to adjust faculty teaching load?

Using the Delaware study data to describe the general teaching load is somewhat complex. Data

are aggregated by university and then again by unit (College of Nursing) and therefore does not

separate out by department within a unit. However, based on the Delaware Study of Costs and

Productivity report (released December 2015), UNC system doctoral faculty teach more class

sections than Carnegie peers. From 2009 to 2014, ECU faculty as a whole and particularly

tenure/tenure‐track faculty had more average class sections per FTE than UNC Charlotte and

UNC Greensboro (Table 39 and 40 below).

Table 39: Average sections per FTE ALL Faculty

Institution 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 %

CHANGE

ECU 4.3 3.9 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.3 + 6.5

UNC Charlotte 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.9 ‐3.3

UNC Greensboro 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.1 2.9 2.8 ‐20.0

Table 40: Average sections per FTE Tenure/Tenure track Faculty

Institution 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 %

CHANGE

ECU 3.5 3.5 3.1 3.1 2.8 2.9 + 3.6

UNC Charlotte 2.6 2.5 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.2 ‐8.3

UNC Greensboro 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.4 ‐22.6

As noted above, ECU faculty have higher average numbers of class sections and an overall

increase in teaching from 2009 to 2014. UNC Charlotte, which has no nursing doctoral programs,

and UNC Greensboro, which has a both a nursing PhD and DNP program, have experienced a

decrease in average class sections.

The general teaching load of the PhD nursing faculty is difficult to extrapolate because the

Delaware Study aggregates all nursing faculty as one unit. Additionally, until academic year

2016/2017, the PhD faculty were included in the Department of Graduate Nursing Science

(MSN, post‐MSN certificates, DNP and PhD programs) and are therefore combined with all

graduate faculty in the report. Table 41 below shows the Delaware data from 2009 for all CON

34

faculty as a point of reference. Tenure or tenure/track faculty provided 56% of graduate

student organized class sections and 100% of individual instruction in the 2009/2010 report.

Table 41: Analysis of CON Faculty using Delaware Study

There has been much discussion over the past 7 years regarding faculty workload allowance for

chairing a dissertation and serving as a committee member. At the present time, faculty who

chair 3 dissertations receive a credit for 1 course equivalency. However, most faculty serve on

several committees as members, chairs or consultants and, although noted on their annual

evaluation, may not receive workload credit for their service. Providing workload credit for

engagement with PhD students through directed research and dissertations offers incentive for

faculty in other departments to assist in the program. With the establishment of a Department

of Nursing Science as the home of the PhD program, the recruitment of additional PhD faculty,

and with collaboration and cross training of qualified faculty in the Department of Baccalaureate

Nursing and the Department of Advanced Nursing Practice and Education, increasing numbers

of faculty are available and prepared to work with PhD students.

4.6 Describe the direct contributions (course sections taught) and indirect contributions (grading,

tutoring, etc.) of graduate teaching assistants to the department’s teaching mission?

No graduate teaching assistants teach or support teaching in the PhD courses; however, one to

two PhD students serve as graduate teaching assistants in the Department of Advanced Nursing

Practice and Education.

4.7 What are the major achievements of department faculty regarding teaching? What has the

department done to support faculty teaching?

In addition to an annual summer retreat, the primary teaching faculty in the PhD program meet

monthly to discuss curriculum, pedagogy, student successes and semester challenges. Examples

of outcomes of these meetings include: 1) Adoption of “Critical Friends” as a process for student

peer review and writing improvement, 2) Consideration of the best practices for promoting and

evaluating student class participation, and 3) Evaluation of optimal online teaching resources

(currently piloting Collaborate to compare to SABA). These meetings have promoted more team

teaching and discussion of building on previous courses rather than working in silos. Faculty

have also had discussions about decreasing the use of “exams” and increasing more application‐

35

focused assignments. Most recently, the faculty considered how to develop writing skills across

the curriculum. A new tenure‐track faculty member who previously engaged in writing across

the curriculum within undergraduate courses, is introducing both parallel and more advanced

strategies into the PhD teaching methods. Finally, the transition from F2F to hybrid course

delivery, prompted the scheduling of three professional development activities for faculty aimed

at online delivery in the 2016‐2017 academic year.

Analysis of Research, Scholarship and Creative Activities

4.8 What are the major achievements of the faculty regarding research, scholarship (including

scholarship of engagement) and creative activities as documented in Sedona and/or RAMSeS?

Details of faculty achievement regarding research and scholarship are noted in the CVs

attached. The major achievements include: a) Awarding of a 2.1 million dollar grant to examine

nursing contribution to patient and organizational outcomes with Scott as PI and Swanson as

Co‐PI; b) Award and active engagement in Susan Komen grant – Shreier; c) Dr. Crane received

the 2016 Southern Nursing Society Leadership Award and her abstract was selected to represent

SNRS at the Council on Advancement of Nursing Science State of the Science; d) Dr. Jimmy Efird

has over 20 data‐based manuscripts in high‐impact journals; e) Dr. Kim Larson was inducted as a

Scholar and Distinguished Fellow in the National Academies of Practice; f) Dr. Marti Engelke has

continued funding with the Wake County Public Schools to examine school nurses role in

advancing health; and g) Dr. Susan Kennerly is a co‐investigator on a newly funded R01.

4.9 What are the relative strengths and weaknesses as compared to departments at peer

institutions or major competitors?

Using Academic Analytics, we evaluated our program in relation to other public universities with

colleges of nursing who had the Carnegie designation of research/doctoral granting. The data

were from 2014 for comparisons, so the results do not reflect changes in our faculty after 2014.

Comparing with 5 other colleges of nursing, ECU ranked 2nd in all categories but one (see

Appendix E for graphs of comparisons). With publications, ECU ranked 2nd in journal articles, but

4th in books. These statistics are based on 28 PhD‐prepared faculty. In awards, ECU CON ranked

2nd, tying with Texas Women’s University for number of awards, and 2nd for grant dollars behind

East Tennessee State University. Because these statistics are based on 2014, we believe the

numbers associated with funding will increase as we have obtained almost 5 million in awards

this past year. Because these statistics are based on all PhD faculty, it includes faculty outside of

the Department of Nursing Science who are not productive in research and scholarship as they

focus primarily on teaching. We believe the development of this new department will increase

our future research and scholarship productivity.

4.10 What has the department done to support faculty research, scholarship and creative

activities?

The Department of Nursing Science became a formal part of the CON Organizational Structure

effective July 1, 2016. The department is comprised of faculty within the college who wish to

devote at least 40% of their workload to research. This includes applying for and managing

research grants, publishing and presenting research findings, mentoring PhD students, chairing

36

dissertations, and working with undergraduate honors students on research projects. This

provides an environment that supports researchers, limits teaching loads, and promotes

collective dialogue and effort towards increasing research funding and opportunities in the

college. Several of the department faculty are also supported in working on inter‐professional

scholarship such as the Redesigning Education to Accelerate Change in Healthcare (REACH)

project in the CON, and the Geriatric Workforce Enhancement Program (funded by HRSA).

The department has a budget to support travel and dissemination. Further, the Office of

Research and Scholarship has a budget that provides seed monies for grants, monies for travel,

consultants, editors, grant reviewers, and necessary equipment/resources for faculty to support

their scholarship. The Office of Research and Scholarship also has 1.5 FTE statisticians to assist

faculty and a grant manager that handles and assists with both pre and post awards. The grant

manager position is currently being re‐conceptualized and will be part of a research support hub

that serves both the CON and the College of Allied Health. This hub will have 2 post award grant

managers and one pre‐award grant manager to provide consistent and targeted support to

faculty.

Analysis of Service and Outreach activities

4.11 What major service and outreach initiatives have the faculty engaged in? What has the

department done to support faculty service/outreach activities?

A founding component of the mission of ECU is “servire,” or service. Given this organizational

value, the department strongly encourages service and outreach initiatives. Each spring faculty

negotiate their individual workload and at least 5% is dedicated to service. Many faculty have

higher percentages of time for service, as evidenced in the bios and brief summary of individuals

below. The university also provides a dedicated number of work hours/academic year that

faculty and staff may use for service work. Two PhD faculty, Dr. Kim Larson and Dr. Deby

Tyndall, are members of the Servire Society at ECU. To be a member you must contribute 100

or more hours in non‐academic community service.

Major Faculty Service Initiatives:

Professional Organization Officers and Committee Members

STTI – Beta Nu chapter including 3 former Presidents

Southern Nursing Research Society – including former President and Chair of two

Research Interests Groups

o Currently one doctoral student is on leadership in the student organization, one

faculty is the state liaison, and one faculty member is running for a board

position.

Council for Graduate Education in Administrative Nursing – including former President

AHA Cardiovascular Stroke Nursing Council‐ one faculty member is a fellow, chaired a

committee for 2 years, and serves on the nomination committee

National Academies of Practice – 3 faculty members are fellows

American Association of Occupational Health Nurses

37

American College of Nurse Midwives

American Society for Pain Management Nursing – including former President

National Association of School Nurses – Editorial Advisory Board, committee chair and

member

Journal Reviewers

Visions: The Journal of Rogerian Nursing Science

Journal of Midwifery and Women’s Health

Journal of Workplace Health and Safety

Nursing Research

Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing

Advances in Nursing

Journal of Nursing Administration

Nursing Administration Quarterly

Nurse Educator

Nursing Outlook

Journal of School Nursing

Journal of Emergency Nursing

Simulation in Healthcare

Clinical Simulation in Nursing

Editorial Review Panel Member

Nursing Outlook

Geriatric Nursing

Journal of Nursing Education

Journal of Healthcare Leadership

Clinical Nursing Research

BMJ Open

Frontiers Public Health

Major Faculty Community Service Initiatives

Wells Elementary School Partnership for Global Initiatives

Wayne County Board of Health member, Chair, VC (2009‐present)

Wayne Initiative for School Health Advisory Board member (2010‐present)

Susan G. Komen Grant for Pitt & Wilson County Breast Wellness Initiative

Community Service Learning Projects in 21‐counties in ENC range in activities from

conducting health fairs, influenza clinics, physical activity and nutrition health

promotion workshops, and Million Hearts Campaign for cardiovascular health and

fitness

East Carolina Center for Nursing Leadership – Director and Program Coordinator for 3

regional nursing leadership education programs

Wake County Schools Initiative to Improve Care Delivered to Students by School Nurses

38

4.12 What does the department plan to do to support the teaching, research and service activities

of faculty? What resources will it need?

One of the major endeavors to support faculty in the tripartite roles of teacher, researcher, and

servant, is to focus on evaluation of workload allocations for varied functions faculty perform in

the college. This year the department chairs have developed and piloted a workload document

to capture the extensive work that is done outside the classroom in doctoral education.

Implementing this document will assist in defining areas for improvement and balancing

workload expectations to maximize productivity, standardize the value of faculty work, and

promote transparency in assignments. Another endeavor is team teaching. Recognizing the

importance of succession planning and mentoring the next generation of doctoral faculty, this

year (2016) we implemented team teaching where an experienced faculty is paired with a junior

faculty member. Usual student numbers in courses range from 5‐8 so with the admission of a

large summer 2016 cohort, this initiative was possible. We will evaluate this endeavor at the

end of year one, but feedback from both experienced and junior faculty is positive. We will also

continue to support faculty time reassignment to allow opportunities for development and

submission of grants.

The resources needed to foster the development of the PhD program include increasing faculty

lines to facilitate our teaching while simultaneously generating additional availability for

research buyout time. Because the faculty in this program are those who have the greatest

potential for teaching buyout through grant funding, having experienced faculty who can step

into the teaching roles is paramount for the success of program and faculty. Second, space

continues to be a challenge. When the building was designed, space was allocated on the 4th

floor for the doctoral program and faculty. Recently, offices designated for doctoral faculty have

been used for nutrition faculty and for grant personnel. Navigating the best use of space

continues to be a challenge across the university. Another resource needed is staff support. In

2015, the administrative program assistant designated to the PhD program was shared with the

DNP program. As both programs grew, this became problematic. An additional administrative

assistant was hired for the DNP program and the PhD program acquired a designated program

assistant. However, with the increase number of faculty in this department, the addition of

department chair responsibilities, and the move to a more hybrid curriculum, further

administrative support (such as recruitment, advising, student services, etc.) will be needed.

5. Regional Transformation – Economic Development/Public Service

5.1 Provide a summary of major activities the department faculty and students have participated

in to support regional transformation over the last seven years.

Dr. Kim Larson was named a Woman of Distinction by the Chancellor’s Committee on the Status

of Women for her work with Latino communities in eastern North Carolina as principal

investigator for the inter‐professional ECU East‐West Collaboration Grant, “Cuidate! – Take Care

of Yourself”. Dr. Larson and collaborators implemented a CDC approved adolescent sexual risk

reduction program at two rural school districts with large Latino populations.

39

Drs. Schreier, Larson, Scott, and Engelke have all received the ECU Teacher Scholar Award.

Dr. Scott was named NC Administrator of the Year for her work on the ANA Scope and Standards

for Nurse Administrators.

Dr. Engelke received the University Community Engagement Award for sustained commitment

to community partnerships.

Dr. Pam Reis was awarded a $1.09 million HRSA grant to improve primary care of women

through the lifespan through expanded use of the ECUCON Virtual Clinic. She led a team of CON

and Brody School of Medicine to develop virtual case scenarios for midwifery and third year

medical students which models collaborative work in interdisciplinary settings.

While individual faculty and students participate in many activities to support regional

transformation, including research with a community based focus (cancer, chronic illness, Latino

health), by far the greatest contribution the PhD program makes is increasing the number of

doctorally prepared nurses equipped to serve as faculty to teach the next generation of nurses.

The program also supports regional transformation by developing nurse leaders and researchers

prepared to advance the discovery and implementation of evidence to improve patient

outcomes, reduce patient harm, and promote healthier communities.

5.2 What does the department plan to do to support regional transformation? What resources

will it need?

The same resources needed to grow the PhD program are needed to support regional

transformation. The region needs more PhD prepared nurse educators and this requires

innovative collaboration with the MSN Nursing Education Concentration Director. Currently,

and into the future, the BSN‐PhD pathway with a focus in nursing education will be advertised

and emphasized. It is also critical that young, tenure‐track faculty be recruited with research

agendas that address the healthcare issues in eastern NC. These faculty must be assisted in

writing and obtaining grants to fund that research and provide mentoring opportunities for PhD

students. Continued and increased collaborative grants within the health sciences division are

also needed to address regional transformation of health. Finally, innovative funding like the

Versant Center for Advancement in Nursing (VCAN) $2.1 million grant need to be continued.

This funding advances research to evidence the value of nursing in improving patient and health

care organizational outcomes.

6. Resources

The University has contributed significant financial support to ensure success of the research

endeavor in the CON. Institutional efforts to increase funding for research infrastructure have

been followed by a steady increase in CON extramural research funding from $17,455 (FY 2004‐

05) to over $5 million dollars (FY 2016). In addition, the number of peer‐reviewed publications

has increased by 26% and there has been a 75% increase in conference presentations. Since

2010, the CON has invested in equipment and more than $50,000 annually in research support

(pilot studies, editorial consultants, and research assistant help). Funding for student

presentations and travel have been primarily provided through the Wysoki Fund and the budget

of the Office of Research and Scholarship.

40

The PhD Program Office is in a suite on the 4th floor. There is office space for the program

director, the program assistant and a small waiting area. A large room near the elevators and

restrooms is the Doctoral Student Lab and Research Assistant office staffed by seven graduate

students, five of whom are PhD students. This room contains computers, tables of different

sizes, study carousels, and optional locked student lockers. Around the corner are two smart

classrooms designated for doctoral classes; one, a conference type room for smaller student

groups and one a bigger classroom with student desks for larger student groups.

7. Other Operational or Programmatic Outcomes

7.1 Describe other assessed outcomes that enable the program/department to achieve its

objectives, e.g., academic advising, graduate student support, operational efficiency,

structural re‐organization, etc. Summarize strengths and weaknesses identified in the

assessment and actions taken to improve those outcomes

Based on the spring 2016 assessment survey completed by active students, the following

strengths and weaknesses have been identified within the PhD program. Following this

summary, actions that will be taken to improve outcomes are noted.

Program strengths: Students in the ECU Nursing PhD program report a positive overall

experience with the program. Those who responded to the survey generally rate the support

services offered by the PhD program as good. Moreover, survey participants feel the curriculum,

PhD faculty, academic advising, opportunities for collaboration, and ability to develop students

as scholars is good. Most students chose to participate in opportunities and resources that are

available to program participants, such as accessing written expectations about academic

requirements and an annual review with a faculty member to assess academic progress.

Results in Table 25 on page 25 show that most students use nursing faculty as the main resource

to navigate through the program. These results show a strong working relationship between

PhD students and faculty. Further support for strong relationships between students and faculty

is presented in Table 26 and Table 27 also found on page 25. Most students report they have

more than one mentor on the faculty with just over half of students using 3 or more faculty

members as mentors while they are in the program. Furthermore, students meet frequently

with their primary academic advisor. Close relationships with mentors and the primary advisor

are crucial to moving students successfully through the program. Throughout the survey

students indicated the amount of contact with faculty advisors and mentors was “just right”

which is essential when developing new nurse scholars.

Another strength of the program is that respondents feel faculty play an important role in

teaching students the standards of academic writing in the nursing field and help students to

develop a strong sense of research ethics. Both of these attributes are essential in the

development of new researchers as they build their program of research.

Almost all students attended a professional conference in the previous year of the program.

Conferences are an important way for students to network and make connections for current

and future research endeavors as well as to begin to make connections for future employment.

41

All students who completed this survey indicated they are likely to finish the program and would

recommend the program at ECU to others.

Program weaknesses: Eight students report participating in early research opportunities. One

student reports there are no available opportunities and three students report they chose not to

participate. These numbers show the majority of respondents did not participate in any type of

early research opportunity over the previous year. Furthermore, the majority of survey

respondents report that their academic advisors do not assist with grant writing, preparing

articles for publication, presentation preparation, or planning for careers post‐graduation.

Because the majority of respondents (90%) indicate a future goal of employment in academia,

all students should participate in research activities as early in the program as possible to begin

to build a CV for future post‐doctoral or faculty positions. This is especially true for students who

wish to pursue employment at major research (R1) institutions. Faculty must assess the

employment goals of all incoming students and guide them appropriately so they are in the best

position to obtain the desired type of academic position upon graduation. To assist with this

goal, the PhD program has implemented two different manuscript dissertation options and

embedded the development of a publication within the benchmarks students are to achieve in

the program. This supports students who will pursue an academic role by assuring they have 2‐

3 publications when they begin their employment.

Although most students agreed that their academic advisor regularly discussed the student’s

research, four students felt their advisors did not discuss their research on a regular basis and

two students did not agree or disagree with the sentiment. Academic advisors should regularly

discuss student’s research from the beginning of the program so that students can more quickly

determine a dissertation topic and tailor their education to meet the needs of their dissertation.

Only half of students felt their academic advisors help them avoid plagiarism or other violations

of academic integrity. Prior to graduation, students should have a firm grasp on what constitutes

plagiarism and the standards of academic integrity they must uphold as independent

researchers. Advisors cannot assume students are receiving this information during formal

classes and must make the additional effort to have discussions with students. To that end, we

have developed an orientation/training session for faculty advising PhD students and have

updated the student handbook to familiarize students and faculty on the advisor/advisee

relationship.

Student reported obstacles to academic progress are somewhat concerning. Five students

report the program structure poses an obstacle to their progress and eight students report the

lack of availability of faculty is an obstacle to progress. The new curriculum and additional

faculty resources should address these concerns. Eight students note that insufficient financial

support is a problem. Currently there are no PhD specific scholarships but graduate

assistantships are one avenue being used to help with this challenge. These specific obstacles

are all related directly to the design and nature of the program and available resources to

students. Other obstacles that are particularly problematic to students are family obligations,

self‐confidence, and difficulties with time management. Although not directly related to the

program these obstacles must still be addressed in other ways so that students can effectively

move towards graduation. Beginning with the 2016 cohort, these common student challenges

are being addressed in the new summer seminar, Nursing Scholarship and Discovery I as well as

42

being addressed within the Lunch and Learn activities organized for each semester. More

emphasis is also being placed on bringing cohorts together so new students can benefit from the

wisdom and experience of more senior students in the program.

The majority of students do not have any manuscripts under review or accepted for publication.

Most students also did not write or submit a grant proposal during the previous year. Students

with the intention of pursuing academic employment should be involved in these activities at

the earliest point possible in the program. Advisors should be aware of student interests and

work to connect students with regularly publishing faculty inside and outside of the College of

Nursing so that students can be included in the process and gain publications while still in the

program. With the addition of more faculty to serve as advisors, availability for participating in

research and manuscript development will increase.

Summary: Overall the feedback from students is very positive. Survey results indicate most

students have a very positive and strong relationship with their primary academic advisor and

this bodes well for progress through program. Because students rely so heavily on academic

advisors and the relationships are so close, it is imperative to ensure that there is a good match

between the mentor and mentee. Moreover, advisors should be strong role models with the

skills and ability to assess the student’s goals and provide strong mentorship to help students

achieve goals upon graduation.

Most students indicate they want to work in academia after graduation, however, not all

students are actively participating in early research opportunities, presenting at conferences,

publishing, or writing grants. Lack of participation in these types of activities may limit students

when applying to post‐doctoral or tenure track faculty positions, especially if the student is not

willing to conduct a nationwide job search. Program advisors do recommend taking the three

graduate education courses as electives that will support future faculty excellence.

It is concerning that half of students who responded to this survey do not feel their academic

advisors are providing assistance with what constitutes plagiarism or the standards of academic

integrity. For this reason, addressing these areas will be emphasized in the first Nursing

Scholarship and Discovery course.

7.2 Action Plans: What does the department plan to do to improve these outcomes? What

resources will it need?

Action Item 1: As early as possible in the program, mentors/advisors will have focused

conversations with students to identify the type of institution at which the student hopes to

gain employment after completion of the program. Together the student and faculty member

will specify yearly goals to move the student towards being marketable within that type of

institution. Mentors should make students aware of local and regional conferences that are

inexpensive to attend and encourage students to submit abstracts to these conferences. Several

local and regional conferences specifically for students provide a good opportunity to practice

presentation skills, build a CV, and begin interdisciplinary networking. Additionally, reviewing

the revised benchmarking sheet with students will also promote achievement of program goals.

43

Action Item 2: A concerted effort will be made to have students identify potential manuscripts

and grant applications early in the program. When appropriate students should be connected

with ECU faculty who hold similar research interest as early as possible so that students can

assist with manuscript and grant preparation and begin to build valuable skills and collaborative

relationships both within the school of nursing and in the medical community across campus.

We anticipate that the Writing Learning Communities will also provide opportunities for

collaborative writing, peer review, and scholarly discussions to support this action item.

Action Item 3: Many of the obstacles students report are not directly related to the program,

such as problems with family, self‐confidence, and time management skills. Mini‐sessions or

lunch and learn type lectures have been introduced to give students ideas on how to best

address these problems because these obstacles do not end at graduation. Effectively coping

with these types of obstacles is important for the duration of a career. Nursing Scholarship and

Discovery I, a new course, introduces students to skills needed to be successful through PhD

student panels, faculty panels, and course objectives and activities aimed to prepare students

for program expectations.

44

References

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2014). National Healthcare Quality & Disparities Report.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. Available at

http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/nhqrdr/nhqdr14/index.html. Last updated June 2015.

Accessed on August 13, 2016.

American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN). (2010). The research‐focused doctoral program in

nursing: Pathways to excellence. Author, Washington, DC; Available at

http://www.aacn.nche.edu/education‐resources/PhDPosition.pdf. Accessed August 13, 2016.

American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN). (2014). Nursing Shortage Fact Sheet. Available at

http://www.aacn.nche.edu/media‐relations/NrsgShortageFS.pdf. Last updated April 24, 2014.

Accessed August 13, 2016.

American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN). (2015a). New AACN Data Confirm Enrollment Surge

in Schools of Nursing Press Release. Available at

http://www.aacn.nche.edu/news/articles/2015/enrollment.

American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN). (2015b). North Carolina State Profile. Available at

http://www.aacn.nche.edu/government‐affairs/resources/North_Carolina1.pdf.

American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN). (2015c). Schools Offering Baccalaureate to

Research‐Focused Doctoral Programs. Available at http://www.aacn.nche.edu/research‐

data/BACDOC.pdf.

American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN). (2016). AACN special survey on vacant faculty

positions for academic year 2015‐2016. Available at http://www.aacn.nche.edu/leading‐

initiatives/research‐data/vacancy15.pdf.

Buerhaus, P. I., Donelan, K., Ulrich, B. T., Kirby, L., & al, e. (2005). Registered nurses' perceptions of

nursing. Nursing Economics, 23(3), 110‐8, 143, 107. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/docview/236937487?accountid=10639

Fauchald, S. K. & Bastian, H. (2015). Utilizing an interdisciplinary approach to increase student writing

abilities in doctor of nurse practice programs. Journal of Professional Nursing: Official Journal of

the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, 31(1), 64‐70.

doi:10.1016/j.profnurs.2014.05.004

Gazza, E., Shellenbarger, T., & Hunker, D. (2013). Developing as a scholarly writer: The experience of

students enrolled in a PhD in nursing program in the United States. Nurse Education Today,

33(3), 268‐274. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2012.04.019

Gimenez, J. (2008). Beyond the academic essay: Discipline‐specific writing in nursing and midwifery.

Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(3), 151‐164. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.005

Ketefian, S. & Redman, R. W. (2015). A critical examination of developments in nursing doctoral

education in the United States. Revista Latino‐Americana De Enfermagen, 23(3), 363‐371. doi:

10.1590/0104‐1169.0797.2566.

45

National Institutes of Health (NIH). (2014). NIH. Physician‐scientist Workforce (PSW) Working Group

Report. Available at http://acd.od.nih.gov/reports/PSW_Report_ACD_06042014.pdf. Updated

June 1, 2014. Accessed August 13, 2016.

Shirey, M. R. (2013). Building scholarly writing capacity in the doctor of nursing practice program.

Journal of Professional Nursing, 29(3), 137‐147. doi:10.1016/j.profnurs.2012.04.019

46

Appendix A: Benchmarks for progression through the PhD program

Benchmark (Year 1: 0 – 20 credit hours) Yes No Notes

Attend doctoral student orientation ☐ ☐

Begin coursework in accordance with plan of study ☐ ☐

Master APA and use of a Reference Manager Software ☐ ☐

Determine research topic and work with PhD program director to select a research mentor/advisor

☐ ☐

Meet with academic advisor (at least once each term) ☐ ☐

Submission for publication or poster locally ☐ ☐

Master basic statistical analysis techniques ☐ ☐

Attend College of Nursing Research Seminars including Seigfred Lowin Lecture and Collaborative Research Day

☐ ☐

Participate on College of Nursing or University committees ☐ ☐

Attend Southern Nursing Research Society (SNRS) conference ☐ ☐

Complete annual report survey (Qualtrics) and share with advisor by May 1st (attach a copy of this form)

☐ ☐


Make continued progress in coursework ☐ ☐

Work with research mentor/advisor to focus research topic and specific research questions and identify candidacy/dissertation committee members

☐ ☐

Attend a Scientific Conference that moves your area of nursing science ☐ ☐

Meet with academic advisor (at least once each term) ☐ ☐

Submit a Final Dissertation Agreement signed by advisor, to CON PhDProgram

☐ ☐

Apply for PhD Candidacy status and successfully complete candidacy examination

☐ ☐

Submit an abstract for a presentation at a regional or national research conference

☐ ☐

Present at College of Nursing Research Seminars including Seigfred Lowin Lecture and Collaborative Research Day

☐ ☐

47

Benchmark (Year 2: 20 – 39 credit hours) continued Yes No Notes Co‐author or author & submit 1 manuscript for publication ☐ ☐


☐ ☐

Benchmark (Year 3: 40 – 54+ credit hours) Yes No Notes

Complete or continue with coursework ☐ ☐

Complete two semesters of research practice (NURS 8250 & NURS 8255),if not already done

☐ ☐

If possible work as a graduate assistant (TA or RA) ☐ ☐

Develop and submit a research grant in your area of nursing science ☐ ☐

Confirm dissertation chair & dissertation committee members ☐ ☐

Achieve Dissertation Agreement benchmarks ☐ ☐

Present at College of Nursing Research Seminars including Seigfred Lowin Lecture and Collaborative Research Day

☐ ☐

Attend/Present at a Scientific Conference that moves your area of nursing science

☐ ☐


Co‐author or author & submit 1 additional manuscript for publication ☐ ☐


☐ ☐

Complete / submit proposal draft(s) for dissertation committee review ☐ ☐

Schedule dissertation proposal defense

☐ ☐

Register for NUR 9000 Dissertation credits according to Dissertation Agreement

☐ ☐


Complete teaching residency, if not already done ☐ ☐

Attend College of Nursing Research Seminars ☐ ☐

Present at College of Nursing Research Day ☐ ☐


48

Present at a regional, national, or international research conference ☐ ☐

Co‐author or author & submit 3rd manuscript for publication ☐ ☐

Defend dissertation proposal ☐ ☐

Obtain HIC approval for dissertation research ☐ ☐

Register for NUR 9991 ‐ 9994 Dissertation credits according to Plan of Work

☐ ☐

Collect dissertation data ☐ ☐

Complete / submit dissertation draft(s) for dissertation committee review

☐ ☐

Explore post‐doctoral study options & apply (if career goal is to be an academic or researcher)

☐ ☐

Schedule dissertation defense ☐ ☐

Present public defense of dissertation ☐ ☐

EAT CAKE and Celebrate! ☐ ☐

49

Appendix B: Curriculum Map

of 3

Appendix C: Assessment Plan

Assessment: Assessment Unit Four Column

CON Program - Nursing (PhD) Program: PhD in Nursing

ECU Academic Program Review Cycle: 10/01/2009

Program Purpose ‐ Unit Mission: The PhD in Nursing prepares nurse researchers and scholars to explore, develop, and more forward the scientific bases of nursing practice and nursing education.

Outcomes Means of Assessments Actions Taken, Results & Analysis of Results Actions Planned for the Next Reporting Year

Nursing Knowledge - Integrate philosophical, conceptual, and methodological foundations to guide the generation of new nursing knowledge. Outcome Status: Currently Being Assessed Outcome Type: Student Learning Outcome Start Date: 08/24/2015

Doctoral Comprehensive Exam - PhD students demonstrate mastery of a comprehensive foundation in nursing knowledge through the successful completion of the candidacy examination as measured by rubric.

Criterion for Success: 80% of PhD students will receive a satisfactory evaluation on the candidacy examination rubric for the question evaluating understanding of knowledge development and integration.

Means of Assessment Status: Active Multiple Means of Assessments: No

Result Status: Criterion Met Reporting Year: 2015-2016 1. Faculty created candidacy exam questions to allow for the student to demonstrate mastery of knowledge development and integration according to their area of interest. A rubric was designed to measure knowledge integration on the candidacy exam. 2. 100% of students passed the knowledge integration candidacy exam question with 2 students requiring a re-write, but ultimately successfully completing the requirement. 3. It was determined upon review by the faculty that there could be improvements in the curriculum to support stronger development of knowledge integration. The faculty will continue use of the rubric to evaluate knowledge integration. (06/08/2016)

Actions Planned for the Next Reporting Year: 4. The faculty revised assignments with stronger, specific objectives to support knowledge integration across the PhD curriculum. This outcome will continue to be monitored. (06/08/2016)

of 3

Research Questions and Scholarly Inquiry - Formulate research questions and conduct scholarly inquiry that contributes to a body of nursing science. Outcome Status: Currently Being Assessed Outcome Type: Student Learning Outcome Start Date: 08/24/2015

Doctoral Comprehensive Exam - 1. PhD students demonstrate proficiency in formulation of research questions by the successful completion of the chapter 1 assignment in N8265, Evolving Nurse Scientist. The chapter 1 assignment requires discussion of the significance of the problem, initial supporting literature and presentation of the research question(s) for dissertation. 2. PhD students demonstrate understanding of the responsible conduct of scholarly inquiry by the successful completion of the chapter 3 assignment in N8265, Evolving Nurse Scientist. The chapter 3 assignment requires discussion of the methodology and procedures for the conduct of the dissertation research study.

Criterion for Success: 80% of PhD students will receive a satisfactory evaluation on the candidacy examination rubric for the questions evaluating formation of research questions and methodological approaches. Means of Assessment Status: Active Multiple Means of Assessments: Yes Related Documents: NURS 8265Chapter 1 rubric.docx NURS 8265 Chapter 3 Methodology.docx

Result Status: Criterion Met Reporting Year: 2015-2016 1. Faculty incorporated the writing of chapter 1 (significance, background and research questions) as a rubric-graded measure of student proficiency in the formulation of research questions. Use of Chapter 1 as a means of assessment has two purposes: measure of student learning and faculty-mentored work on final dissertation. For the second means of assessment, use of chapter 3 (methodology) as a rubric-graded measure of student proficiency in responsible conduct of scholarly inquiry also provides measures of student proficiency and provides faculty-mentored work on final dissertation. 2. (1)80% of students in N8265 completed the chapter 1 assignment at 80 or higher. (2) 80% of students in N8265 completed the chapter 3 assignment at 80 or higher. 3. Faculty reviewed student performance on both assignments and determined the assignments to be critical to the student's successful progress toward dissertation. (06/08/2016)

Actions Planned for the Next Reporting Year: 4. Faculty plan to continue using the rubrics for both means of assessment. The assignment of a research mentor to each student by end of year 1 of study will further contribute to the student's successful completion of both assignments and accomplishment of the skills necessary to meet this learning outcome. (06/08/2016)

of 3

Dissemination of Research Findings - Disseminate research findings through multiple modes including publications and presentations. Outcome Status: Currently Being Assessed Outcome Type: Student Learning Outcome Start Date: 08/24/2015

Scholarly Activity - PhD students will submit and/or present a podium, poster or manuscripts by their third year or sixth semester of study using peer-reviewed venues and in consultation with their research mentor and/or advisor. Criterion for Success: 80% of PhD students by their 3rd year or 6th semester of study will submit and/or disseminated via podium, poster or paper. Research mentors, class and advisor faculty review the student submissions and disseminations in progress and annually to assure quality, peer-reviewed submissions are accomplished.

Means of Assessment Status: Active Multiple Means of Assessments: No

Result Status: Criterion Not Met Reporting Year: 2015-2016 1. The faculty decided to emphasize the importance of research findings dissemination by requiring all PhD students to submit their work for podium, poster or manuscript presentations. To best facilitate the student success, the faculty determined that this outcome could be accomplished with mentoring by the 3rd year or 6th semester of study. 2. Faculty met with their students to facilitate the submission of their work. 71% of students submitted for research findings dissemination. 3. During the faculty retreat, the faculty determined that the students lacked adequate mentorship in the dissemination process. (06/08/2016)

Actions Planned for the Next Reporting Year: 4. Faculty decided to appoint each student a research mentor at the end of year 1 of study that will work with students to select peer-reviewed venues to submit their work. The student handbook will be changed for AY2016-2017 to clarify the explanation of this learning outcome. There will be an annual and as needed review of student submissions by the research mentor and/or faculty advisor. Progress toward submissions will be recorded in the student's annual report and all students progress will be reviewed by the PhD faculty as a group in the annual retreat. (06/08/2016)

Appendix D: Faculty Profile of Attendees – fall 2016 Orientation

Faculty Name Full Time/

Part Time

Diversity Terminal

Degree

Rank Tenure Status

Sylvia Brown Full Time White EdD Professor Tenured

Robin Webb Corbett Full Time White PhD Associate

Professor

Tenured

Patricia Crane Full Time White PhD Professor Tenured

Martha Engelke Full Time White PhD Professor Tenured

Theresa Floegel Full Time Unknown PhD Assistant

Professor

Tenure Track

Laura Gantt Full Time White PhD Associate

Professor

Tenured

Sonya Hardin Full Time White PhD Professor Tenured

Carolyn Horne Full Time White PhD Assistant

Professor

Tenure Track

Lee Ann Jarrett Johnson Full Time Unknown PhD Assistant

Professor

Tenure Track

Susan Kennerly Full Time Unknown PhD Professor Tenured

Cheryl Kovar Full Time White PhD Assistant

Professor

Tenure Track

Dianne Marshburn Temporary White PhD Instructor‐

Clinical

Ineligible ‐

Temporary

Maura McAuliffe Full Time White PhD Professor Tenured

Michelle Mendes Full Time Black PhD Assistant

Professor

Tenure Track

Janice Neil Full Time White PhD Associate

Professor

Tenured

Annette Peery Full Time White EdD Associate

Professor

Tenured

Pamela Reis Full Time Black PhD Assistant

Professor

Tenure Track

Faculty Name Full Time/

Part Time

Diversity Terminal

Degree

Rank Tenure Status

Donna Roberson Full Time American

Indian/Alaskan

Native

PhD Associate

Professor

Tenured

Ann Schreier Full Time White PhD Associate

Professor

Tenured

Elaine Scott Full Time White PhD Associate

Professor

Tenured

Melvin Swanson Full Time White PhD Professor Tenured

Deborah Tyndall Full Time White PhD Assistant

Professor

Tenure Track

Holly Wei Full Time Asian PhD Assistant

Professor

Tenure Track

Carol Winters Full Time White PhD Professor Tenured

Appendix E: Comparison of Research & Scholarship with Competitors

20

28

31

22

31

20

2 1 1 0 0 00

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

East TennesseeState University

East CarolinaUniversity

Texas Woman'sUniversity

Illinois StateUniversity

IndianaUniversity ofPennsylvania

University ofNorthernColorado

Awards

no. fac total awards

3128

22

31

20 20

107

70

57

31

23

10

0

20

40

60

80

100

120







Journal Articles

5265047

720750371418

107769 0 00

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000







Grant Dollars

no. fac total grant dollars

31 31

20

28

2220

86 6

53

1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35







Axis Title

Axis Title

Books

no. fac total number of books

31 2822

31

20 20

107

70

57

3123

10

0

20

40

60

80

100

120




Indiana Universityof Pennsylvania



Total Publications

no. fac total journal publications

Executive Summary (3 5 pages) - ecu.edu Summary (3 ... Often students, unable to adequately respond...

Documents

Transcript of Executive Summary (3 5 pages) - ecu.edu Summary (3 ... Often students, unable to adequately respond...