Higher Education Program

Quality Enhancement Review January 2018

Higher Education Program Department of Educational Leadership & Policy Studies

College of Education Florida State University

https://education.fsu.edu/degrees-and-programs/higher-education

https://thecenter.fsu.edu/llrc/leadership-studies-certificate

Chair: Dr. Robert Schwartz Bylaws: https://education.fsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Educational-Leadership-and-

Policy-Studies-Bylaws.pdf Term of last QER: 2003-2010

Higher Education Program

2

Higher Education Program

3

College of Education Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Table 2: Faculty Information Ranked Faculty

Last Name First Name Degree Degree University Job Description Tenure

FSU Hire Gender Race Program Affiliation

Bertrand Jones Tamara PhD Florida State University Asoc Professor 9 Mo SAL Tenured 6/21/05 Female Black Higher Education

Cox Bradley PhD Pennsylvania State University Asoc Professor 9 Mo SAL Tenured 8/9/10 Male White Higher Education

Guthrie Kathie PhD University of Illinois Asoc Professor 9 Mo SAL Tenured 8/8/08 Female White Higher Education

Hu Shouping PhD Indiana University Professor 9 Mo SAL Tenured 8/9/04 Male Asian Higher Education

Mokher Christine PhD Vanderbilt University Asoc Professor 9 Mo SAL On Track 8/7/17 Female White Higher Education

Perez-Felkner Lara PhD University of Chicago Asst Professor 9 Mo SAL On Track 8/7/12 Female Multi-ethnic Higher Education

Schwartz Robert PhD Indiana University Professor 9 Mo SAL Tenured 8/7/98 Male White Higher Education

Wetherell Thomas PhD Florida State University Professor 12 Mo SAL Tenured 1/6/03 Male White Higher Education

Source: HCM - Workforce - Employee Job database

Higher Education Program

4

Additional Faculty and Instructors

Last Name First Name Degree Degree University Job Description Tenure FSU Hire Gender Race Program Affiliation

Ahlquist Josie PhD California Lutheran University

Teaching Faculty I V. in Lieu

Not on Track 6/24/15 Female White Higher Education

Albrecht Bailey Mast. Texas State University Teaching Faculty I Adjunct Not on Track 1/9/17 Female White Higher Education

Bowden Brandon EdD Florida State University Teaching Faculty I V. in Lieu

Not on Track 8/15/14 Male Black Higher Education

Callahan Kathleen PhD Florida State University Teaching Faculty I V. in Lieu

Not on Track 6/22/16 Female White Higher Education

Cauthen Thomas PhD University of Georgia Teaching Faculty I V. in Lieu

Not on Track 12/21/16 Male White Higher Education

Crume Allison PhD Florida State University Teaching Faculty I V. in Lieu

Not on Track 1/3/17 Female White Higher Education

Dollar Valerie Mast. American University Teaching Faculty I V. in Lieu

Not on Track 12/23/15 Female White Higher Education

Enlow Grady PhD Florida State University Teaching Faculty I V. in Lieu

Not on Track 12/21/16 Male White Higher Education

Jackson Robyn JD Florida State University Teaching Faculty I V. in Lieu

Not on Track 8/7/17 Female

Multi-ethnic Higher Education

Mauk Andrew PhD Florida State University Teaching Faculty I V. in Lieu

Not on Track 1/6/16 Male White Higher Education

Mendizabal Juan Mast. University of Central Florida Teaching Faculty I Adjunct Not on Track 2/10/17 Male

Multi-ethnic Higher Education

Mills Gordon PhD Florida State University Teaching Faculty I V. in Lieu

Not on Track 12/21/16 Male White Higher Education

Palazesi Louis PhD Florida State University Teaching Faculty I V. in Lieu

Not on Track 12/23/14 Male White Higher Education

Peerenboom Jill PhD Florida State University Teaching Faculty I V. in Lieu

Not on Track 5/26/14 Female White Higher Education

Rettig Jean PhD Florida State University Teaching Faculty I V. in Lieu

Not on Track 5/8/14 Female White Higher Education

Spencer Dorsey Mast. The University of Massachusetts Teaching Faculty I Adjunct

Not on Track 1/3/17 Male Black Higher Education

Swiman Elizabeth Mast. University of Florida Teaching Faculty I V. in Lieu

Not on Track 1/3/17 Female

Hispanic/Latino Higher Education

Wong Nancy Mast. University of Connecticut Teaching Faculty I Adjunct Not on Track 1/9/17 Female Asian Higher Education

Source: HCM - Workforce - Employee Job database

Higher Education Program

5

Higher Education Faculty CV Links

Faculty Name CV Link Bertrand Jones, Tamara http://www.fsu.edu/cvdb/TBERTRAND.rtf Cox, Bradley https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8inK8vW6pRMOTI5RlJ4eWhYUVE/view Guthrie, Kathy http://www.fsu.edu/cvdb/KGUTHRIE.rtf Hu, Shouping http://www.fsu.edu/cvdb/SHU.rtf Mokher, Christine http://www.fsu.edu/cvdb/CMOKHER.rtf Perez-Felkner, Lara http://fsu.edu/cvdb/LPEREZFELKNER.rtf Schwartz, Robert http://www.fsu.edu/cvdb/RASCHWARTZ.rtf Wetherell, T.K. http://www.fsu.edu/cvdb/TKWETHERELL.rtf

Higher Education Program

1. Major Changes/Unit Strengths/Weaknesses Major Changes in Higher Education Program Through a series of creative collaborations and the implementation of a student-focused pedagogy, our program has developed a national reputation for producing influential research and graduating successful higher education researchers and practitioners. Since the last QER in 2010-2011, the Higher Education faculty have:

• Updated the Master’s curriculum to align with the ACPA/NASPA Professional Competency Areas for Student Affairs Practitioners, developed a new Master’s student assessment methods sequence, and created a comprehensive Capstone experience course. More about these processes will be described in the section on curriculum review.

• Updated the Doctoral curriculum of to distinguish the Ph.D. and Ed.D. degrees, including identifying two areas of specialization (Public Policy and Student Affairs) for the Ph.D., and designed a rigorous quantitative methods course sequence. More about these processes will be described in the section on curriculum review.

• Discontinued an online Master’s degree in Higher Education due to low enrollment. • Hired two new faculty members, Dr. Lara Perez-Felkner (Assistant Professor) in 2012

and Dr. Christine Mokher (Associate Professor) in 2017, who contribute to the Student Affairs and Public Policy specializations.

• Installed a new Program Coordinator in Fall 2016, Dr. Tamara Bertrand Jones, when previous coordinator left the university.

• Promoted to Associate and tenured four faculty, three who still remain on faculty in the program, Dr. Kathy Guthrie, Dr. Brad Cox, and Dr. Tamara Bertrand Jones.

Over the last year, the program faculty have engaged in extensive discussions regarding our program’s vision, mission, and guiding tenets. Last year, we identified three main pillars that ground our work: Leadership, Student Success, and Social Justice. Over the next few years, we aim to more fully integrate leadership, inclusion, and equity into our work as we cultivate scholars who transform postsecondary education practice, research, and policy to ensure equitable student success. Strengths The program’s strengths lie in three main areas, (1) the quality of faculty research, teaching, and service, (2) the academic preparation and professional development of program students, (3) an active alumni network, the LifeNet, and (4) the program’s location in Tallahassee, the capital city of Florida. Quality Faculty: Quality Research, Teaching, and Service As a program, we have continued to recruit promising faculty and students who have not disappointed. Our 60 year history and strong, national reputation helps attract highly qualified candidates for faculty searches, and assists with student recruitment. Program faculty actively contribute to our emphases on leadership, social justice, and student success in research,

Higher Education Program

7

teaching, and service. We utilize qualitative, quantitative, and/or mixed methodological approaches in our work and have developed viable research agendas, sustain comprehensive portfolios of scholarly activity, engage in effective teaching, and frequently represent the program, department, College, and university in a variety of service activities. Most recently, program faculty have created two research centers and a non-profit organization focused on the three pillars that frame our program. Leadership Learning Research Center. The Leadership Learning Research Center’s (LLRC), started in 2016 by Dr. Kathy Guthrie, Associate Professor of Higher Education. The mission is to inform and support scholars, educators, and practitioners regarding leadership teaching and learning through scholarship, curriculum development, and consultation. The strength of the LLRC resides in its theory-to-practice-to-theory framework, where research is directly applied to both curricular and co-curricular leadership education. They accomplish this mission by:

• producing and disseminating original research • providing resources to leadership educators to utilize research at institutional and

programmatic levels • developing partnerships and collaborative research teams to promote excellence in

leadership teaching in order to increase development of leadership capacity in college students

• preparing the next generation of leadership educators and scholars The LLRC offers course work in leadership studies, scholarly research, and leadership learning publications and resources. In partnership with the College of Education and the Center for Leadership & Social Change, we offer the Undergraduate Certificate in Leadership Studies. The LLRC staff engage in research and professional development as well as teach in the certificate program. Additionally, the LLRC supports the development and publication of the New Directions for Student Leadership source book series and the Contemporary Perspectives on Leadership Learning book series. The LLRC is housed with the Center for Leadership & and Social Change, where they aim to transform lives through leadership education, identity development, and community engagement. Center for Postsecondary Success. The Center for Postsecondary Success (CPS) started in 2014 by Dr. Shouping Hu, Dr. David Tandberg, and Dr. Toby Park. The mission of the CPS is to provide support for, and foster collaboration among, those who are interested in conducting research on student success in postsecondary education, and to identify and evaluate institutional, state, and federal policies and programs that may serve to improve student success. The overall goal of the CPS is to foster a culture and create a structure where researchers, policy makers, and practitioners can come together to find solutions to address issues facing postsecondary success through rigorous and timely research and evidence-based policy and practice. The CPS’s primary goal is to collaborate with key constituencies in the local community (e.g., FSU), in the state of Florida, and in the United States to identify and improve the conditions for postsecondary success. To date, the CPS staff has been awarded over $5 million for research by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Institute for Education Sciences, and the Regional

Higher Education Program

8

Educational Laboratory Southeast and produced numerous reports and publications on a variety of student success topics. College Autism Network. As Dr. Brad Cox’s research interests have evolved to focus on college access, experiences, and outcomes for college students with autism, he has begun to leverage his scholarly productivity into broader social change. Concurrent with his 2017 publication in the Journal of College Student Development - the first article in a top-tier higher education journal to ever mention autism – he recently founded the College Autism Network (CAN), a national nonprofit organization linking varied stakeholders engaged advocacy, research, and training. CAN, started in 2014, is a national nonprofit organization linking varied stakeholders engaged in evidence-based efforts to improve access, experiences, and outcomes for college students with autism. CAN envisions:

• Student Well-being: We want autistic students to feel confident that they have the personal qualities and institutional support necessary to succeed in college.

• Educational Achievement: We want to maximize the likelihood that students with autism enter, persist, and graduate from college.

• Institutional Responsiveness: We want educational institutions to be responsive to autistic students’ specific needs, appreciate their distinct perspectives, and highlight the unique contributions these students can make to their institutions, fields of study, and society at large.

CAN’s principles guide the implementation of their activities.

• Open Source, Open Access: The College Autism Network is a nonprofit organization. Therefore, whenever possible, we provide free and open access to all of our materials, typically via Creative Commons license.

• Proactive Inclusion: We consider the needs, abilities, interests, and opportunities for individuals across the autism spectrum, as well as those variety of stakeholders. We wish to speak with, not for, people with autism. We use our network to extend the audience that hears the voices of autistic college students.

• Collaboration: The College Autism Network’s purpose is broad, our activities diverse, and our goals multi-faceted. To achieve these goals, we will work with wide-ranging stakeholders to create synergistic initiatives designed to magnify our collective contributions.

While our faculty have established solid records of scholarly productivity, as evidenced by the Centers and their publication records, we also have been honored for outstanding teaching and service by the program, the College, FSU, and professional organizations.

• Program faculty, including Dr. Brad Cox (2012), Dr. Kathy Guthrie (2015), Dr. Tamara Bertrand Jones (2013), Dr. Bob Schwartz (2017), and Dr. Lara Perez-Felkner (2014) have received the FSU Transformation through Teaching Award, a program established through the Spiritual Life Project to honor full-time faculty who have had an intellectual, inspirational, and integrative impact on the lives of their students. Faculty are nominated for their transformational role in their students’ academic life and were selected by FSU’s Spiritual Life Project on the basis of the students’ compelling story.

Higher Education Program

9

• Dr. Kathy Guthrie (2014) and Dr. Tamara Bertrand Jones (2017) have also been recognized by the FSU College of Education for their excellence in undergraduate and graduate teaching, respectively.

• Dr. Brad Cox (2015, 2016) and Dr. Kathy Guthrie (2017) were nominated for the FSU Graduate Mentor Award. Dr. Guthrie went on to win the award.

• Additionally, program faculty Dr. Kathy Guthrie (2012), Dr. Brad Cox (2016), Dr. Tamara Bertrand Jones (2015), Dr. Lara Perez-Felkner (2016) have also been recognized for their roles as Mentors and Supervisors by the Hardee Center for Leadership and Ethics.

• Dr. Shouping Hu (2012) received Senior Scholar recognition and Dr. Kathy Guthrie (2017) received recognition as a Diamond Honoree by the American College Personnel Association.

• Dr. Bob Schwartz (2017) received the Robert H. Shaffer Award for Academic Excellence as a Graduate Faculty Member sponsored by the National Association of Student Personal Administrators.

Integration of Academic Preparation and Professional Development All of the program’s faculty have worked in higher education or other professional settings prior to their faculty careers. Moreover, the faculty represent diverse areas of expertise; this practical experience strengthens both the faculty’s research and student preparation. Given their experience, faculty assist students with an integration of theory-to-practice-to-theory. The program offers a rigorous academic experience in which students develop a solid theoretical foundation from which to integrate practice, and from this experience develop questions that guide future research or theory generation. Departmental faculty in collaboration with the FSU Division of Student Affairs, the Higher Education Student Association (HESA), the Hardee Center for Leadership and Ethics, and the FSU Graduate School provide professional development opportunities for our students include topics that range from conducting research, presenting at professional conferences, securing funding for their graduate education, and Safe Zone Training for supporting LGBTQ students on campus. Taken together these program and campus-wide activities encourage students’ professional and personal development and supplement the academic preparation received from coursework. Tallahassee: A Higher Education Practical Laboratory Building on the solid academic preparation provided by the program, through graduate assistantships and internships, students are provided opportunities for practice in the higher education laboratories found on campuses and other locations throughout the city. Tallahassee, Florida’s capital city, is home to three higher education institutions, Florida State University (research Intensive predominantly White institution), Florida A&M University (Historical Black College/University), and Tallahassee Community College (community college).

• The program benefits from a symbiotic relationship with FSU’s Division of Student Affairs, two affiliated research centers (the Center for Postsecondary Success and the Leadership Learning Research Center), the Hardee Center for Leadership in Higher Education, and the Jon C. Dalton Institute on College Student Values.

Higher Education Program

10

• Our students are well-prepared for a professional career through our focus on “theory to practice to theory,” a process by which students learn about professional theories and practices in the classroom, then transfer that knowledge into action through active involvement in internships and graduate assistantships, and finally close the loop by using the lessons learned from practice to influence new knowledge generation.

• Internship and graduate assistantship placements are located around the campus, in other local institutions- Tallahassee Community College, Florida A&M University, as well as state offices such as the Department of Education and similar offices and agencies.

• Many of our students serve in professional staff positions in university offices and work with a variety of student groups and activities.

• Our students are also highly sought after for work in other university offices such as Institutional Research, Women in Math, Science and Engineering, the FSU College of Medicine, Colleges of Social Work, as well as state offices, such as the Division of Florida Colleges, Board of Governors, and others.

The LifeNet: An Alumni Network The strengths of the program include a strong network of alumni generated by over 60 years of accomplishment by our graduates and the program faculty since 1958. The LifeNet, established by Dr. Melvene Hardee, is an extensive network of Florida State Higher Education students, alumni, faculty, staff, and friends. When students join the Higher Education program or accept a position at Florida State University, they become part of the LifeNet. The LifeNet is showcased through the Hardee Center for Leadership and Ethics in Higher Education and is alive and well on campuses and at conferences across the United States and around the globe. The annual resume book showcases the best and brightest students that FSU Higher Education has to offer and is emailed to the LifeNet at the beginning of every spring semester for our graduating cohort. The Hardee Center for Leadership and Ethics in Higher Education supports the academic study and professional development of graduate students in the Higher Education program at Florida State University and promotes the “LifeNet” of students, staff, alumni, faculty, and friends. The Hardee Center sponsors educational programs, research, and service activities that promote leadership and ethics in the field of higher education. The Center also conducts educational seminars, hosts national meetings and workshops, sponsors research projects, and provides consultation on issues related to higher education leadership and ethics. Weaknesses Despite the program’s significant growth since the last QER, we have identified additional areas for further improvement. Limited Doctoral Student Funding FSU remains less competitive than peer or aspirational institutions in the area of doctoral student funding. In order to attract diverse, competitive, academically qualified doctoral students who can greatly impact our program, competitive, multi-year funding is required. While all of our full-time Master’s students receive graduate assistantships that support them for the duration of

Higher Education Program

11

their academic programs, the funding provided for our doctoral students is not comparable. For example, the program has limited graduate assistantships for doctoral students. Faculty are particularly attuned to the need for sustained funding to attract and retain these students. To continue providing high quality education for a diverse group of students, higher education faculty have applied for and received multiple external grants that extend funding to the students. However, the benefits of external funding providing support for doctoral students is often tempered by fewer competitive doctoral students interested in and capable of conducting rigorous research. We often lose top ranked applicants to schools that provide guaranteed funding. These potential students enthusiastically apply to our program to work with faculty whose research has received increased attention in Higher Education; however, students end up declining admission to FSU because of our inability to provide long-term, and at times even short-term, funding. More recently, the new research centers, and individual faculty research projects have made progress in this area by securing sustained funding for several doctoral students. Unfortunately, few institutional funds set aside for this purpose have been committed. The university fellowships and awards have become increasingly more competitive as they draw from potential doctoral students from across the campus. Siloed Research Productivity As mentioned above, the program is home to at least two formal research centers and another center designed to support student and alumni development. Faculty have mentioned that while these efforts have resulted in increased visibility for our faculty and the work produced here at FSU, there is a concern about the lack of integration and collaboration. Given the many overlapping scholarly interests and the potential synergy of the three pillars- leadership, student success, and social justice, structures that improve the collaboration and coordination of all centers in increasing faculty productivity, student support, and program visibility are areas ripe with possibilities. Inequity of Service and Teaching Demands In a recent survey of College faculty, the two top areas of concern centered on inequity in and lack of recognition of faculty service demands, and a desire for clarification of faculty role in and coordination of student recruitment efforts. The former was rated highest of the 10 areas of concern on the survey. When discussed at the College level, faculty were encouraged to find resolution at the departmental level. Currently, in the Higher Education program, and the larger ELPS department, assistant and associate level faculty have inordinate service responsibilities. For example, prior to the successful tenure and promotion of Dr. Kathy Guthrie, Dr. Brad Cox, and Dr. Tamara Bertrand Jones, the Higher Education program was a program with a majority of assistant professors. Unequal advising loads, an area of concern identified in the last QER, remains an issue, particularly for the women faculty.

• Continuous Improvement-Faculty Service

Higher Education Program

12

o Maintenance of DSA relationship, serving on search committees, attending Director level DSA Central Staff meetings and other events

• The processes of continuous review and improvement outlined above have produced positive results for the program at multiple levels. These efforts, however, also meant that faculty had to take on extensive amounts of work along with their regular research, teaching, advising, and service responsibilities. The faculty, nevertheless, stepped forward and committed themselves to these projects. The limited number of resources at the program and the department level means that faculty are not compensated for such extensive service in terms of course releases or other support systems. This situation is particularly problematic for tenure-track faculty. For example, multiple faculty members, both tenured and tenure-track, who are on a nine-month contract end up working during summer without receiving any compensation for it. This level of commitment, while exemplary, cannot be sustained in the long term.

Higher Education Program

2. Academic Program History The Higher Education program at Florida State University offers the master’s degree in Higher Education with an emphasis in Student Affairs. We also offer the doctoral degree as both an Ed.D. (Doctorate in Education) and Ph.D. (Doctor of Philosophy). We also offer a Certificate in Institutional Research. On average, the program enrolls approximately 50-60 students in the masters programs bi-annually and 50-60 students in the doctoral programs at any one time. The Higher Education program at Florida State University began in 1958 with three original faculty- Dr. Hugh Stickler, Dr. Melvene Hardee, and Dr. Raymond Schultz. The program grew rapidly and expanded to six faculty by 1962. In the 1960’s and 1970’s, the program became involved with the W.K. Kellogg grants to support the development of leadership for community colleges in the U.S. The primary focus of the Department of Higher Education, as it was originally called, was “preparing college teachers, administrators, and student personnel workers to fill positions in the expanding Florida institutions and in schools all over the United States” (B. Mann, 1997). Since its inception, the program has continued to fill its role in the state, the Southeast, and nationally, of preparing students at the master’s and doctoral level for administrative, research, and faculty positions in the administration and management of higher education at all levels of post-secondary education. Alumni of the Higher Education program can be found in community colleges, colleges and universities, and in state and federal positions both in the U.S. and internationally. In 1997, it was estimated that there were approximately 700 graduates of the Higher Education program. By 2017, that number has increased to well over 1,500.

Higher Education Program

3. Degree Program Description Master of Science in Higher Education The master’s degree program is the Master of Science (M.S.) in Higher Education with emphasis in Student Affairs. The M.S. degree requires a minimum of thirty-nine (39) hours of course work. All courses taken for the Master’s degree must be graduate courses. A graduate of the M.S. program in student affairs will:

• Demonstrate knowledge of the foundations of higher education and student affairs, including knowledge of the history and philosophy of higher education, theories of student development, and the effects of college on students.

• Demonstrate knowledge of professional practice, including organization and administration of student affairs; advising, counseling, instructing, leading, and managing techniques; and fundamental uses of assessment, evaluation, and research in understanding organizational and individual behavior.

• Communicate an understanding of the diverse cultural backgrounds of college students and the characteristics of college students.

• Delineate a personal code of professional ethics and philosophy of student affairs that would guide action.

• Demonstrate the acquisition and use of knowledge, skills, values, and competencies through supervised practice in the form of internships, assistantships, or a full-time position in a higher education setting, and through applications such as case studies, case problems, and simulations.

Doctor of Education in Higher Education The Ed.D. degree prepares graduates who demonstrate knowledge of policy and practice through the conduct of systematic inquiry in a defined arena of higher education. Students will learn to develop evaluation strategies based upon a clear understanding of current practice and professional standards. The student will learn to apply economic, governmental, historical, institutional, and sociocultural contexts to the setting in which their inquiry and practice is to occur. The Ed.D. degree requires a minimum of 57 semester hours of coursework beyond the master’s degree with a 3.00 minimum GPA plus 24 hours of dissertation credit. The 57 semester hours must include 21 hours of higher education core courses, 12 hours of Foundations courses, 6 hours of elective courses, and 18 hours of research courses. Doctor of Philosophy in Higher Education A Ph.D. prepares graduates who demonstrate knowledge of theory and research. Ph.D students will gain expertise in their chosen specialization and expertise over the course of their studies through choosing a degree track: public policy in higher education or student affairs in higher education. Using these specializations as a basis, they will learn how to develop testable research questions or hypotheses, construct corresponding literature reviews, and develop strengths in methodologies that will allow them to devise a policy-relevant original research study that meets the requirements of the students’ discipline of inquiry. Ultimately, students will graduate with

Higher Education Program

15

the ability to conduct independent research of a quality required by the field’s major associations and academic publications. The Ph.D. degree requires a minimum of 57 semester hours of coursework beyond the master's degree with a 3.00 minimum GPA and 24 hours of dissertation credit. The minimum of 57 semester hours must include 9 hours of higher education core courses, 9 hours in discipline courses, 21 hours of research courses, 18 hours in student specialization. a. What aspects of the curricula distinguish the Higher Education program at FSU from

similar programs around the country? The Master of Science in Higher Education is designed to prepare students to work in student affairs positions in a variety of settings. Graduates are employed in all aspects of student affairs including housing, Greek life, student activities, orientation, career development, academic advising, union administration, judicial affairs, services for students with disabilities, and generalist positions. The emphasis of this program is on the administration of student affairs and student development. FSU’s program is theory-to-practice-to-theory based, learning in the classroom is tied directly to practical experiences students have a paraprofessionals on campus through graduate assistantships and internships. Their experiences in these areas also support their classroom learning by putting theory into context in a hands-on work setting. This effort distinguishes the FSU program from others through purposeful use of the ACPA/NASPA Professional Competencies for Higher Education Professionals across several classroom and practical experiences to assist students in analyzing their own learning and development. The program also has a strong outcomes sequence, training students to approach assessment and hands-on research in a practical context. Upon completion of the doctoral degree, graduates will have learned a code of professional ethics and enhanced their critical thinking to work through complex and emerging problems in higher education, both theoretical and practical. They will also be able to demonstrate knowledge and application of approaches used in administration, leadership, and research. The Ph.D. is unique through its two tracks of study with designed focus on one of two specializations: either the Student Affairs track or the Public Policy track. By choosing a specialization, a student will be able to combine elective and core courses with other learning experiences in order to pursue their unique educational and professional goals. In general, curricula are designed to provide a knowledge base about the professional field and a theoretical framework to guide research and career development in higher education. The faculty provide a variety of expertise essential to the continuing development of higher education as a field of study. Doctoral graduates make similar contributions, and our alumni constitute an important network of individuals who serve nationwide in positions of leadership within higher education institutions, research organizations, and policy-making agencies.

Higher Education Program

16

b. How do these programs contribute to FSU’s mission (https://www.fsu.edu/about/mission_vision.html)?

The programs in Higher Education have strong curricular emphasis on preparing graduates to contribute to the field of study through both empirical research and program-based outcomes assessment to strengthen programs, services, and policies that impact student success. Social justice learning and reflection are woven throughout the curriculum to prepare graduates to acknowledge barriers and work toward equity in higher education for the students of today and tomorrow. The program prepares leaders with a strong sense of self, personal responsibility, and a social justice mindset to lead change in higher education. Graduates work in a variety of administrative, research, and teaching programs in education agencies and organizations throughout the United States and abroad. Their careers serve current human needs and they work toward realizing valued societal goals through their work to support student success in higher education. Undergraduate Certificate in Leadership Studies a. What aspects of the curricula distinguish the Higher Education program at FSU from

similar programs around the country? The Undergraduate Certificate in Leadership Studies at Florida State University is an 18- credit interdisciplinary program, which provides an intentional environment for students to focus on leadership development. Leadership knowledge and skill development, as well as opportunities for experience and reflection are offered through a series of five core courses and one supporting course. Core courses focus on knowledge, skills, and values of leadership within specific contexts. The Undergraduate Certificate in Leadership Studies is a collaborative effort with the College of Education, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies (ELPS), and the Center for Leadership and Social Change in the Division of Student Affairs. Each of these partners plays a vital role in the development, continual growth, and success of this program. b. How do these programs contribute to FSU’s mission

(https://www.fsu.edu/about/mission_vision.html)? The Leadership Certificate program has demonstrated significant impact on students in terms of student development in areas of self-awareness, increased engagement, cooperation with others, and increased awareness of social justice and equity. Over time, the developmental nature of the program will have a significant effect on individual students and their careers. These characteristics have already been imbedded in the culture of the university through the Garnet and Gold Scholars program and the requirement that Garnet and Gold Scholars participate in the Leadership Certificate. Typically, prospective employers look for demonstration of leadership skills and engagement among graduating seniors and the Leadership Certificate is a clear indication that a student has made a clear effort to seek out those opportunities and preparation. Institutional Research Certificate The Certificate in Institutional Research was developed in 2002 with a $600,000 grant from the Association for Institutional Research and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The Certificate in Institutional Research (CIR) is housed in the Department of Educational

Higher Education Program

17

Leadership and Policy Studies in the College of Education at Florida State University. Courses were developed to appeal to a variety of professionals and students who have an interest in advancing their understanding of Institutional Research theory and practice. Under the direction of Dr. Robert A. Schwartz, the Certificate evolved from a hybrid on- and off-campus format to an entirely online format in 2005, accessible to students both nationally and internationally. Although the Certificate was initially available only to post-master’s students, the program was opened to include post-bachelor’s students in the summer of 2008. The CIR at Florida State University is offered through the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies (ELPS) in the College of Education. It is an online program designed to provide academic and professional development opportunities for institutional researchers, administrators, graduate students, and faculty from all areas of higher education. Students enhance their knowledge and understanding of Institutional Research, have the opportunity to explore institutional, state, and national databases, and apply their knowledge to practical situations. The program curriculum consists of 18 credit hours of course work in three areas of study: Institutional Research Theory and Practice, Institutional Administration, and Educational Research. The goals and objectives of the CIR are:

1. To enhance knowledge and understanding of Institutional Research and the relevant issues of current practice.

2. To promote the use of Institutional Research in policy development and administrative processes at educational institutions.

3. To stimulate interest in using national databases to address educational issues. 4. To promote professional collaboration and the advancement of Institutional Research in

the US and other countries.

Program Format The Certificate program consists of 18 hours of graduate-level coursework. All courses are entirely web-based and conducted asynchronously via Blackboard. Students who are only interested in the Certificate program may be admitted to FSU as special, non-degree seeking students. Special students do not have to meet the full academic requirements for admission to graduate programs at FSU. However, the courses taken in the program show as graduate-level coursework on student transcripts. Students can transfer up to 6 credit hours of graduate-level educational research or statistics course work into the program. At least 12 credit hours must be completed at FSU. The foundational course, Introduction to Institutional Research is offered each summer, during the Summer C session. While it is meant to be the first course in the series, some students start during other terms, and thus take other courses first. All students must complete the IR Practicum capstone course, which enables students to apply the theories and practices of IR learned throughout the program to a specific project. b. What aspects of the curricula distinguish the Higher Education program at FSU from

similar programs around the country?

Higher Education Program

18

The Certificate is designed to accommodate both graduate students and working professionals. Students may complete the Certificate at their own pace; continuous enrollment is not required. The web-based format allows for students not currently attending FSU (and even residents of other countries) to participate. Students may be admitted as special, non-degree seeking students. They do not have to be formally admitted through the graduate schools to a graduate degree program. This minimizes hassle associated with medical records and other admissions requirements. Graduate level educational research and statistics courses completed at any accredited university may be transferred in for supporting credits.

Higher Education Program

4. Curriculum Review Our drive to respond to the cutting edge developments in student affairs and public policy in higher education, while being attuned to the emerging needs of the students, practitioners, and policymakers, has shaped the in-depth and extensive curriculum review processes in the last seven years. The faculty last conducted curricular reviews of the Master’s program in Spring and Fall 2012, and the Ed.D and Ph.D. programs in Fall 2012-Spring 2013. For each program, faculty conducted a comprehensive review of the core courses, identified student learning outcomes, and as available aligned the core courses and learning outcomes with professional competencies and the program’s mission and vision. Given the criticality of a theory to practice to theory orientation for the preparation of graduate students in higher education, faculty also consult with current higher education professionals and adjuncts to determine essential areas for revision consideration. Each program convenes a sub-committee of core faculty and adjuncts to review the curriculum and propose revisions to the faculty at large. After the discussion of the proposed revisions, faculty then vote on the final revisions for adoption. Specific action taken for each program related to recent curricular review is detailed below. These review processes are supervised by the program coordinator who oversees the working of the program. The program coordinator is appointed by the higher education faculty and the department chair. This leadership position supports the development, reviews, and decision making processes at the program level. Master of Science in Higher Education As identified earlier, the Master’s degree in Higher Education program requires students to complete 39 core and elective hours. In the last curricular revisions undertaken, faculty reviewed the ACPA/NASPA Professional Competency Areas for Student Affairs Practitioners and identified the core competencies the program would center students’ academic experiences. These core competencies reflected in the Master’s program curriculum include:

3. Assessment, Evaluation, & Research (AER): Focuses on the ability to use, design, conduct and critique qualitative and quantitative AER analyses; to manage organizations using AER processes and the results obtained from them; and to shape the political and ethical climate surrounding AER processes and uses on campus.

4. Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion: Includes the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to create learning environments that are enriched with diverse views and people. It is also designed to create an institutional ethos that accepts and celebrates differences among people, helping to free them of any misconceptions and prejudices.

5. History, Philosophy & Values: Involves knowledge, skills and attitudes that connect the history, philosophy and values of the profession to one’s current professional practice. This competency area embodies the foundations of the profession from which current and future research and practice will grow. The commitment to demonstrating this competency area ensures that our present and future practices are informed by an understanding or our history, philosophy and values.

6. Human & Organizational Resources: Includes knowledge, skills and attitudes used in the selection, supervision, motivation, and formal evaluation of staff; conflict resolution;

Higher Education Program

20

management of the politics of organizational discourse; and the effective application of strategies and techniques associated with financial resources, facilities management, fundraising, technology use, crisis management, risk management and sustainable resources.

7. Law, Policy & Governance: Includes the knowledge, skills and attitudes relating to policy development processes used in various contexts, the application of legal constructs, and the understanding of governance structures and their impact on one’s professional practice.

8. Leadership: Addresses the knowledge, skills and attitudes required of a leader, whether it be a positional leader or a member of the staff, in both an individual capacity and within a process of how individuals work together effectively to envision, plan, effect change in organizations, and respond to internal and external constituencies and issues.

9. Student Learning & Development: Addresses the concepts and principles of student development and learning theory. This includes the ability to apply theory to improve and inform student affairs practice, as well as understanding teaching and training theory and practice.

At that time, each core course provided by the program was then mapped with a core competency. While three of the core competencies, (1) Advising and Helping, (2) Personal Foundations, and (3) Ethical Professional Practice, are not reflected in the academic curriculum, students’ graduate assistantships and required internships afford Master’s students with experiences to develop these competencies. In Spring semester 2016, Master’s program faculty reconvened to discuss further gaps observed in Master’s students’ knowledge and core courses that no longer supported students’ development. At that time, the following changes were made:

1. EDH 5054: American College Student was removed from the core courses. 2. EDH 5931: Leadership Education and Learning was developed and added to the core

courses to provide students with formal leadership education and training. 3. EDH 5078: Outcomes of Assessment in Higher Education was developed and added to

the core courses to provide students with expertise in developing student learning outcomes and designing assessment processes to support learning.

4. EDF 5481: Methods of Educational Research was developed as a class for masters students only, designed to follow Outcomes of Assessment in Higher Education and provide students with the research and assessment tools needed to complete a related project.

The Master’s program of study and the recommended course sequence is provided below. A program handbook is provided in Appendix I. Master of Science in Higher Education Curriculum

Core Courses (33 hours) • EDH 5051 Higher Education in America: Basic Understandings (3) • EDH 5045 Student Development Theories (3) • SDS 5040 Introduction to Student Affairs (3) • EDH 5046 Diversity in Higher Education (3)

Higher Education Program

21

• EDH 5078 Outcomes Assessment in Higher Education I (3) • EDH 5931 Leadership Education and Learning (3) • SDS 5804 Practicum in Student Personnel (3) • EDF 5481 Methods of Educational Research (3) • EDH 5630 Capstone in Higher Education (3) • EDH 5944 Internships or Thesis (6** see note below) Electives (minimum 6 hours) • EDH 5042 Student Success in College (3) – recommended elective • EDH 5405 Legal Aspects of College (3) – recommended elective • EDH 5639 Management in Higher Education (3) – recommended elective • EDH 5054 The American Community College (3) • EDH 5506 College & University Business Administration (3) • EDH 5055 Introduction to Institutional Research (3) • EDH 5305 College Teaching: Instruction (3) • EDH 5504 Institutional Advancement in Higher Education (3) • EDF 5519 History of Higher Education (3) • EDH 5005 Sociology of Higher Education/Sociology of Education (EDF 5630) (3) • EDH 5506 College and University Business Administration (3) • EDH 6067 International Perspectives in Higher Education (3) • EDH 5095 Strategic Planning in Higher Education (3) • EDH 5507 College and University Budgeting (3) • EDH 6505 Finance in Higher Education (3) • EDH 6064 Women in Higher Education (3) • EDH 5089 Black and Latino Education: History and Policy (3) (Other higher education courses may be substituted with consent of advisor)

Doctorate in Higher Education Program faculty revised both the Ed.D. and Ph.D. programs simultaneously. Faculty had recently decided to create two main tracks for the Ph.D. program- Public Policy and Student Affairs to build on the strengths of program’s core faculty and national reputation. A sub-committee focused on the Ed.D. curriculum, while two other sub-committees were tasked with revising the two tracks of the Ph.D. program. Ed.D. Program At the time the program decided to revise the doctorate curriculum, the Educational Leadership and Policy Studies department began earnest discussions about the education doctorate (Ed.D.). These discussions informed the Higher Education program’s Ed.D. sub-committee in that the focus on the professionalization of the doctorate as a distinguishing feature from the Ph.D. was an important consideration. In essence, the program sought to further distinguish the Ed.D. from the Ph.D. while not creating a “lesser” degree, but by further differentiating the curriculum by identifying core and foundational courses essential for administrators. As a result, the core courses in the Ed.D. program centered on administrative and management functions, with applied research methods grounding the research core. Foundational courses like EDH 6081:

Higher Education Program

22

Leading Change in Higher Education, EDH 6085: Social Justice in Higher Education, and EDH 6041: Public Policy in Higher Education rounded out the imperative student and policy centered courses faculty deemed critical. The Ed.D. program of study and the recommended course sequence is provided below. Doctor of Education in Higher Education Curriculum

Higher Education Core (21 hours) • EDH 5051 Higher Education in America (3) • EDH 5405 Legal Aspects of College and University Administration (3) • EDH 5506 College and University Business Administration (3) • EDH 5639 Strategic Management in Higher Education (3) • EDH 6505 Finance of Higher Education (3) • EDH 6635 Organization and Governance (3) • EDH 6936 Seminar in Student Development Theories (3) • EDH TBD Pro Seminar (0)

Higher Education Foundations (12 hours) • EDH 6067 International Perspectives in Higher Education or

EDF 5089 Black and Latino Education: History and Policy (3) • EDH 6081 Leading Change in Higher Education (3) • EDH 6085 Social Justice in Higher Education (3) • EDH 6401 Public Policy in Higher Education (3)

Research Core (18 hours) • EDF 6486 Applied Research Methods in Ed Leadership and Policy (3) • EDF 5935 Introduction to Quantitative Analysis for Education Policy (3) • EDF 6475 Qualitative Methods of Education Research (3) • EDF 5461 Introduction to Program Evaluation (3) • EDH 5068 Outcomes of Undergraduate Education (3) • EDA 6930 Literature Review (or EDH 6935 Prospectus Development) (3)

Higher Education or Related Electives (6 hours) EDH 5042 Student Success in College (3) EDH 5054 The American Community College (3) EDH 5055 Introduction to Institutional Research (3) EDH 5305 College Teaching: Instruction (3) EDH 5504 Institutional Advancement in Higher Education (3) EDF 5519 History of Higher Education (3) EDH 5005 Sociology of Higher Education/Sociology of Education (EDF

5630) (3) EDH 5095 Strategic Planning in Higher Education (3) EDH 5507 College and University Budgeting (3) EDH 6064 Women in Higher Education (3) EDH 5089 Black and Latino Education: History and Policy (3)

Higher Education Program

23

EDF 5624 Economic of Education (3) EDH 5931 Special Topics: Politics of Higher Education (3) EDH 6040 Research on College Students EDH 5931 Special Topics: College Student Populations (3)

Dissertation (24 hours) EDH 8964 Preliminary Examination (0) (Spring, Summer) EDH 6980 Dissertation Hours (24) EDH 9985 Dissertation Defense (0)

Ph.D. Program Building on the program’s national reputation of preparing successful higher education administrators, the program faculty sought to add to this reputation by producing higher education researchers and scholar-practitioners, competent at conducting and consuming rigorous research. The two sub-committees for the Ph.D. program revisions focused on two tracks- Public Policy and Student Affairs. The Public Policy track centers on essential knowledge students need to better understand education public policy and conduct policy focused research, while the Student Affairs track provides foundational knowledge needed to work with and conduct research on student populations. Each sub-committee offered 18 hours of required track specific courses, designed to support the higher education core courses, and be supplemented with discipline courses outside of higher education. To distinguish the deeper depth of research training required, additional research core courses were identified and developed for Ph.D. students. The faculty in the department conducted a comprehensive review of the research methods courses to examine the course offerings, content, and sequence of the methods courses. This process resulted in the addition of new quantitative methods courses, revisions of some of the existing quantitative courses to further highlight the applied nature of the Educational Leadership and Policy field, and a suggested sequence of the research methods courses for the students. Faculty hired in the Educational Leadership and Policy Studies department with the requisite methods training and expertise has supported these expanded course offerings. To mirror the qualitative research methods sequence in the department, faculty created a quantitative methods sequence to provide students with the opportunity to learn methods in context. New courses included:

1. EDF 6486: Applied Research Methods in Educational Leadership and Policy (required) 2. EDF 5935: Introduction to Quantitative Analysis for Education Policy (required) 3. EDF 5935: Applied Regression (required) 4. EDF 5414: Introduction to Large Scale Datasets (advanced methods recommendation)

Doctor of Philosophy in Higher Education Curriculum Higher Education Core (9 hours) EDH 5051 Higher Education in America (3) EDH 6635 Organization and Governance (3) EDH 6936 Seminar in Student Development Theories (3) EDH #TBD Pro Seminar (0)

Higher Education Program

24

Specialization (Specified Track: Public Policy or Student Affairs) (18 hours) Public Policy: EDH 6505 Finance of Higher Education (3) EDH 6401 Public Policy in Higher Education (3) EDH 5005 Sociology of Higher Education (or EDH 5630 Sociology of

Education) (3) EDF 5652 Policy Development (3) EDH 5931 Politics of Higher Education (3) EDF 5624 Economics of Education (3)

Student Affairs: EDH 5931 Seminar on College Student Populations (3) EDH 6040 Research on College Students (3) EDH 6081 Leading Change in Higher Education (3) (Alt. Fall Terms) EDH 6085 Social Justice in Higher Education (3) (Alt. Fall Terms)

Choose 1 Technology course: EDH 5309 Technology in Higher Education (3) EME 6414 Web 2.0 based learning and performance (3) EME 5457 Intro to distance learning: Trends and issues (3)

Choose 1 of the following courses: EDF 5089 Black and Latino Education: History and Policy (3) EDH 6067 International Perspectives in Higher Education (3) (Fall) EDF 5519 History of Higher Education in America (3) (Alt. Spring Terms) EDH 5005 Sociology of Higher Education (or EDH 5630 Sociology of Education) (3) EDH 6401 Public Policy in Higher Education (3)

Discipline Courses (9 hours) - work with major professor All Ph.D. students must complete 9 credit hours for an outside discipline. In

consultation with the student’s advisor a student selects a discipline or specialization outside of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies.

Research Core (minimum 21 hours) EDF 6486 Applied Research Methods in Educational Leadership & Policy (3) EDF 5935 Introduction to Quantitative Analysis for Education Policy (3) EDF 6475 Qualitative Methods of Education Research (3) EDF 5935 Applied Regression (3) Advanced Methods I (3) Advanced Methods II (3) EDA 6930 Literature Review (or EDH 6935 Prospectus Development) (3)

Dissertation (24 hours) EDH 8964 Preliminary Examination (0) (Spring, Summer) EDH 6980 Dissertation Hours (24) EDH 9985 Dissertation Defense (0)

Higher Education Program

25

Advanced Methods Course Recommendations: EDF 5414 Introduction to Large Scale Datasets (Fall) EDF 5935 Special Topics: Quasi-Experimental Methods (Alt. Spring Terms) EDF 6476 Advanced Qualitative Methods (Spring) EDF 6479 Qualitative Data Analysis (Summer)

Since the adoption of the new curricula, faculty have undertaken bi-annual reviews of each program’s curriculum. In response to student requests, and to support departmental planning, each program in the department created a 3-Year Course Calendar to help students plan in advance programs of study. This calendar has been a useful tool for students, faculty, and departmental leadership alike. A copy of the most recent 3-Year Course Calendar can be found in Appendix J. Preliminary Examination Revision Similarly, since the overall curriculum change, the faculty also adopted to change the preliminary examination procedures. The preliminary examination now serves as an evaluation system that enables faculty to assess if students possess the core and methodological knowledge to become doctoral candidates. The preliminary examination was modified from a take-home exam with a series of faculty developed questions focused on core higher education courses. The exam now is focused on a practical problem/issue in higher education. In their response, students are required to:

• Incorporate concepts, theories, and literature from the core coursework and beyond; • Include solutions to the problem(s) using theories, research, and evidence drawn from

your specialized course work and professional experience; and • Outline a research or evaluation plan consistent with your methodological training.

While also adopting a perspective of a higher education stakeholder, including:

1. A college or university president 2. A senior student affairs leader 3. A chief academic officer 4. A state policymaker (SHEEO, governor, or legislative leader) 5. A federal policymaker (the president, USDOE secretary or legislative leader).

In their responses, students are expected to:

a) Demonstrate an understanding of, and an ability to use, professional and academic literature on topics discussed during their core courses. Although citations are expected, the quantity of citations is considered of secondary importance relative to the appropriate synthesis of relevant literature to support comprehensive, coherent, and compelling arguments.

b) Incorporate the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological literature from their coursework throughout their examination. Although students may take a variety of approaches to identify key issues needing to be addressed for a particular prompt, students are expected to clearly articulate the perspective from which they are

Higher Education Program

26

approaching the problem (e.g., public policy, student development, sociology, institutional leadership).

c) Outline a defensible plan for applying an appropriate assessment, evaluation, or research design to further examine the issues underlying the problems outlined in the prompt. Students should propose designs consistent with their foci during methodological coursework. Successful exams may propose qualitative, quantitative, and/or mixed methods. Regardless of the specific methodological approach, students must justify their methodological choices using arguments drawn from and supported by the appropriate methodological, theoretical, and topical literature.

Overall, we have seen improvements in the quality of student responses to the preliminary examination process, and increase in students’ preparation to develop an assessment, evaluation or research design that corresponds with their proposed problem’s solution.

Higher Education Program

5. Student Learning Outcomes The Higher Education Program uses the results in the Institutional Effectiveness (IE) portal to guide decisions related to curricular revisions based on student feedback and course evaluations, and annual evaluations which are supplemented by the IE portal information. External assessments and curricular changes suggested or recommended from professional associations over the last few years have been more instructive overall than the assessments provided by the IE Portal but the IE process has been helpful by requiring attention to and assessment by faculty on an annual basis. Feedback from students is also reviewed to gauge perceptions that students are being properly prepared, and if there are suggestions on other outcomes to consider, or other means of assessment. Suggestions are discussed by the faculty members and appropriate steps are taken based on decisions made. We have, in the past, but not recently, undertaken efforts to connect with former students (now alumni) after a three to five year period to assess their satisfaction with the preparation they received in the master’s degree program. Those responses were, in general, very positive and supportive. It may be time to engage in such a process again, especially given the rapid changes that we have experienced in the field, e. g., increased demand for assessment and evaluation skills, technology usage, and social justice issues.

Higher Education Program

28

Higher Education Program

29

Higher Education Program

30

6. Instructional Demands Higher Education Program The addition of new faculty over the last seven years has helped the Higher Education program maintain pace with instructional demands. To comply with minimum enrollment requirements of 10 students per course as set by the College, some Higher Education doctoral courses were offered bi-annually, in order to ensure adequate enrollment. However, since then, these courses have maintained steady enrollments throughout the years and could potentially be offered annually. In some master’s degree courses, enrollments exceed 30 students, which is particularly high for graduate level courses. The ELPS department provides teaching assistants for courses with enrollments over 25 students in order to ensure a quality learning experience for students. These TA positions provide practical; teaching experience for doctoral students who are interested. The program also has a robust pool of adjunct instructors who help the full-time faculty and program ensure that students are exposed to practical problems and cutting edge solutions. Adjunct faculty are assigned to teach courses for our students like courses in the Institutional Research certificate, the Leadership Studies certificate, and internship, and technology in higher education. We avoid using adjunct faculty to teach core courses, however, and will continue to do so. Undergraduate Certificate in Leadership Studies It is anticipated that the Leadership courses will continue to expand and begin to reflect a new demand from employers for students who have the certificate and are well-prepared to take on leadership and related roles after graduation. At present, students have not indicated that such training is required for employment but as the pool of students who can point to LDR preparation, we can anticipate that employers and others (e.g., service agencies) will be very interested in the LDR certificate. The number of Leadership programs around the U. S. is expanding rapidly as reflected in the number of inquiries about our program from other institutions. The demands on the program from undergraduate students across the university has been impressive. Student leaders, athletes, and academic programs around the university have come to realize that the LDR program offers high quality preparation in areas that are not found in traditional academic curricula yet are in high demand in today's job market as well as in areas as diverse as athletics and the new School of Entrepreneurship, to name only two areas. The LDR courses have also gained support in the Liberal Studies course offerings. Since the majority of LDR courses are taught by voluntary instructors or doctoral students, more oversight and care needs to be given to each instructor. During 2016, a total of 40 sections of LDR courses were taught. Of these 40 course sections, there were 26 unique instructors who Dr. Kathy Guthrie worked with and supervised. Of the 26 instructors, 10 are current Higher Education doctoral students.

Higher Education Program

31

There has been steady increase in student enrollment in LDR courses each year since the inception of the program (see Table 1). We have continued to increase course offerings by increasing class sizes, recruiting and retaining voluntary instructors, and adding graduate student teaching assistants with no additional funding from the college. The department has found ways to continually support payment of LDR instructors with department dollars but that solution is a temporary remedy at best. The College did support a request for two new faculty in Higher Education in July, 2017, one tenure-track line and one Specialized Faculty, to help support the very high demand in the Leadership program. The new School of Entrepreneurship is also requiring their students to complete a minimum of two LDR courses as a part of their curriculum. So the hiring of two new faculty will come just in time. Unfortunately, when the LDR program was created as a result of the SACS 2005 Quality Enhancement Plan, the university did not create a line-item budget to support the program. So funding for the Leadership Certificate and program has always been derived from funding dedicated to “other” programs and activities, primarily surviving on discretionary funding from the Division of Student Affairs and the ELPS department. More will be discussed at the end of this report but a long-term solution to this funding issue is still not in place. Historical overview of LDR Course Enrollments since 2008

Course # Title 08-09

09-10

10-11

11-12

12-13

13-14

14-15

15-16

16-17

LDR 2101 Leadership Theory & Practice 57 50 99 112 142 167 171 260 484 LDR 2162 Leadership Groups &

Communities 30 60 68 64 69 89 92 96 100

LDR 3215 Leadership & Change 30 37 57 72 79 96 97 125 142 LDR 3263 Leadership Experience 14 21 24 25 29 36 21 36 22 LDR 4105 Leadership & Complexity 7 9 20 24 26 27 25 32 24 LDR 2163 Emerging Leaders 25 55 79 76 83 LDR 4404 Student Affairs Leadership 26 18 10 18 21 12 19 25 LDR 2213 Leadership in Social Justice 35 53 69 75 84 76 LDR 2290 Leadership & Sustainability

in Action 8 10 24 12 25 25

LDR 2160 Peer Leadership 64 50 48 116 105 LDR 2210 Leadership through

Intergroup Dialogue 15 5 43 74 40

LDR 2116 Leadership in the Digital Age 25 72 24 LDR 2231 Global Leadership 24 22 25 LDR 2560 Leadership in Film 30 74 LDR 2241 Black Male Leadership 20 LDR 2242 Gender and Leadership 23 ADE 4930 Special Topics in Leadership 19 41 14 Total 128 203 311 405 584 660 763 1032 1223 Credit Hrs 384 609 933 1215 1752 1980 2289 3096 3669

Higher Education Program

32

7. Distance Learning Higher Education Program Currently 10 courses are offered through distance learning. These courses are offered online annually or bi-annually. Our degree programs are primarily delivered through in-person classes, however, the following are offered:

• EDH 6505 Finance of Higher Education – required for the Ed.D. /Public Policy Ph.D. • EDH 5506 College and University Business Administration – required for the Ed.D. • EDH 5639 Management in Higher Education – required for the Ed.D./M.S. elective • EDH 6067 International Perspectives in Higher Education – required for the Ed.D. • EDH 5309 Technology in Higher Education – required for Student Affairs Ph.D. • EDH 6040 Research on College Students – required for Student Affairs Ph.D. • EDH 5042 Student Success in College – a recommended elective for the M.S. • EDH 5068 Outcomes of Undergraduate Education – required for the Ed.D. • EDH 5054 American Community College – elective course • EDH 5504 Institutional Advancement – elective course

a) The primary area for distance learning will likely come through increased affiliation

between the Higher Education program and the current on-line Ed.D. program under the ELP programs in our department. Originally, the Ed.D. did not include higher education as an option for students. However, upwards of 1/3 of the students in the first Ed.D. cohort came from a higher education background or work setting (e.g., community colleges, the FSU Medical School, etc.) so the need to find “common ground” in the Ed.D. and to include Higher Education faculty or adjuncts is a clear need. At present, some Higher Education faculty are serving on on-line Ed. D. committees and at least one Higher Ed faculty is now on the Admissions committee for the third Ed.D. cohort to be selected in Spring, 2018.

b) On-line courses have consistently been monitored for rigor and equivalence to face-to-face courses by the Higher Education faculty. We use the Office of Distance Learning rubric, Quality Matters Rubric Standards for Online Courses, to assess course content and delivery, and we also pay close attention to student evaluations for both on-line and traditional courses.

Certificate in Leadership Studies

a. We will continue to offer LDR 2101, LDR 2116, LDR 2560, and LDR 3263 courses online. However, there are no future plans to expand these offerings.

b. The coordinator of the Undergraduate Certificate Program monitors all courses and reviews curriculum each semester.

Higher Education Program

33

8. Common Prerequisites (Undergraduate Only) Common prerequisites are not applicable to Undergraduate Certificate in Leadership Studies.

Higher Education Program

34

9. Limited Access Not Applicable to Higher Education program or Undergraduate Certificate in Leadership Studies.

Higher Education Program

35

10. Advising Faculty have developed, and update annually, a handbook for each degree program in Higher Education. Students can find much information regarding advising, programs of study, and other university and program requirements detailed in the program’s handbook. A copy of each handbook can be found in Appendices I and J. Master’s Advising All master’s degree students are advised initially by a temporary faculty advisor appointed by the Graduate Program Coordinator for the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies. Students must select one of the higher education faculty members as a major professor by the end of the first year of enrollment. It is the student’s responsibility to consult with their advisor until a Program of Study is filed with the College of Education Office of Academic Services and Intern Support (OASIS). The Program of Study is typically filed in the second term of enrollment with is usually Spring term. We place responsibility for completing academic deadlines in students’ hands. Students should be thoroughly familiar with the program handbook, the University Graduate Bulletin, and other University, Department and Program policies and requirements which may be distributed as additions to the handbook. Preparing and following a correctly planned degree program is the responsibility of each graduate student. Students should consult the Florida State University Graduate and Professional Student Handbook at http://www.gradstudies.fsu.edu/New-Current-Students/Graduate-Student-Handbook for additional information on institutional policies. The major professor and other faculty members are eager to give assistance, but the responsibility rests with the student. Program of Study In consultation with the academic advisor, students develop a Program of Study, which they proceed to follow to the completion of the degree. Full-time students should file an approved Program of Study with the OASIS by the end of the second semester of graduate study. Part-time students should file an approved Program of Study by the time they have accrued 18 credit hours. A completed Program of Study must include both the Major Professor/advisor and Department Chair signatures. Students completing a thesis should visit the OASIS website for additional Program of Study approval requirements. The program of study may be modified before applying for graduation. Doctoral Advising Students begin doctoral study under the guidance of a temporary advisor assigned to assist in developing a program of study, but the student must ultimately select a major professor. The major professor works closely with the student throughout the doctoral program and guides the student’s dissertation work. The major professor must have graduate faculty status in the higher education program. The student must decide who to invite to serve in this role and ask that person to serve as major professor. It is expected that the student will make the selection of a major professor within the initial year of study in the program.

Higher Education Program

36

Supervisory Committee Following the selection of the major professor, the student should select a supervisory committee prior to registering for the preliminary examination. The selection of a supervisory committee should reflect the proper composition of expertise needed to direct the student’s dissertation with particular attention to the selected dissertation topic. The student should make the selection of the supervisory committee with the assistance of the major professor. Both Ph.D. and Ed.D. students select a major professor and supervisory committee. The supervisory committee will consist of a minimum of four members, all of whom must be FSU faculty and have graduate faculty status. One committee member must be a tenured faculty member from outside the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies to serve as the university representative. It is recommended that the student select an outside committee member only after taking a course with that faculty member. The university representative of the Ph.D. supervisory committee may come from the discipline or department in which the student will earn a specialization. It is the responsibility of the supervisory committee to assess annually the progress of the doctoral student. The supervisory committee will make the assessment available in writing to the student, the department chair, and the academic dean.

Higher Education Program

37

11. Instructional Evaluation The Higher Education program approaches teaching and learning as evolving processes that must respond to the changing nature of the field of Higher Education, as well as to the needs and interests of the students. The faculty employs multiple formal and informal tools to evaluate the effectiveness of the curriculum. In addition to regular student evaluations, the faculty often invites their peers to conduct evaluations of their teaching. New faculty are required to conduct on peer evaluation in each term of their first year and again in the second year. See Appendix L for the peer review form used for such evaluations. The adjunct faculty hired to teach elective or other courses in the program are evaluated by the Program Coordinator and the Department Chair. The Program Coordinator works closely with adjunct instructors to ensure highly quality instruction. Graduate teaching assistants are supervised, supported, and evaluated by the course instructor. In addition, graduate teaching assistants also undergo a mandatory workshop offered by FSU’s Program for Instructional Effectiveness, coordinated by the Graduate School. Teaching assistants for courses in the Undergraduate Certificate for Leadership Studies undergo a mandatory teaching workshop approved by the Graduate School.

Higher Education Program

38

12. Graduate Placement Our students continue to achieve success and our placement rate of new graduates at both the master’s and doctoral levels remains very high, typically at 98-100% within two months of graduation. Information on graduates from the previous three (3) academic years can be found below. Student placement after graduation ranges from administrative and faculty positions at a variety of colleges and universities across the nation. Through extensive connection stemming from the FSU LifeNet, the Higher Education program maintains communication and contact with our recent and previous graduates. Given the program’s 60 year history, more seasoned graduates include current and former campus Presidents and Vice Presidents for Student Affairs, Development Officers, and Directors of a variety of functional areas in Student Affairs. More recently, doctoral graduate have begun exploring faculty positions. We envision these numbers increasing as more students expand their research capacity and consider tenure-track positions as viable career options. Degrees Awarded (AY = Summer, Fall, Spring): Academic Plan AY

2010-11

AY 2011-

12

AY 2012-

13

AY 2013-

14

AY 2014-

15

AY 2015-

16

AY 2016-

17 Higher Education - MS 32 34 39 27 24 28 28 Higher Education - MS/Thesis — — — 1 1 1 —

Higher Education - EDS — — — — — 1 — Higher Education - EDD — — — 3 7 2 — Higher Education - PHD 10 7 6 3 6 8 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

AY 2010-11 AY 2011-12 AY 2012-13 AY 2013-14 AY 2014-15 AY 2015-16 AY 2016-17

Higher Ed - Degrees Awarded

Higher Education - MS Higher Education - MS/ThesisHigher Education - EDS Higher Education - EDD

Higher Education Program

39

Recent Doctoral Graduates- 2014-2017

Graduate Position after Graduation Graduation Date

Victoria Dobiyanski Dean of Students- Florida State University Summer 2017

Dante Pelzer Assistant Director for Student Diversity- Medical University of South Carolina

Spring 2017

Sharon Edel Arts & Humanities Adjunct Instructor, Florida State College at Jacksonville

Fall 2016

Scott Balog Assistant to the President, Tallahassee Community College

Spring 2016

James Hunt Director of Institutional Research- Florida State University

Spring 2016

Yi-Chin Wu Associate Director-Assessment, Kent State University Spring 2016 Marilyn Anglade Adjunct Professor of Law, Nova Southeastern

University Fall 2015

Shawna Patterson-Stephens

Director-Davis Center, Williams College Fall 2015

Theodore Stratton Residence Director, Dartmouth University Fall 2015 Kathleen Callahan Teaching Faculty, Christopher Newport University Summer

2015 Louis Macias Development Director, University of Wisconsin Law

School Summer 2015

Matthew Trengove Senior Research Analyst, Eastfield College Summer 2015

Monoka Venters Project Manager, Alliance for PROS Summer 2015

Diana Barbu Director of Academic Programs, State University System of Florida - Board of Governors

Spring 2015

Mackenzie Fritz Associate Director, Residential Education and Hospitality Services, Michigan State University

Spring 2015

Ellyn Scanlan Outreach Coordinator, Boys and Girls Clubs of the Big Bend

Spring 2015

Paul Stonecipher Florida Department of Education Spring 2015 Bradley Brock Associate Dean. College of Fine Arts, FSU Fall 2014 Joshua Coveleski Associate Director of Development, Sanford School of

Public Policy, Duke University. Fall 2014

Grady Enlow Vice President for Advancement, Thomas University Fall 2014 Angela Simmons Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs, Virginia

Tech University Fall 2014

Shavecca Snead Institutional Assessment Coordinator, Albany State University

Fall 2014

Brantley Willett Associate Director for Academic Integrity at George Mason University

Fall 2014

Higher Education Program

40

Brandon Bowden Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs, Florida State University

Summer 2014

Carrie Henderson Associate Vice President- Institutional Advancement, Florida State College at Jacksonville

Summer 2014

Aurelio Manuel Valente

Associate Vice President for Student Affairs, Governors State University

Summer 2014

Recent Master’s Graduates- 2017

Graduate Position & Institution Graduation Date

Lauren Apgar Student Life & Leadership Development Administrator at Northampton Community College

Spring 2017

Chase Breeden University Housing Community Director at North Carolina State University

Spring 2017

Molly Buckley Assistant Director of Student Activities at Endicott College Spring 2017 Jessica Coons Residence Coordinator at Duke University Spring 2017 Matt Corbett Student Program Coordinator for Student Activities at

Florida State University Spring 2017

Caroline Cox Academic Advisor at Georgia State University Spring 2017 Josh Guffey Academic Advisor at Virginia Commonwealth University Spring 2017 Lauren Haynes Leadership Coach at the University of South Carolina Spring 2017 Katelyn Hayworth

Academic Advisor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Spring 2017

Andy Hoffman Program Coordinator with Reservations and Events at Vanderbilt University

Spring 2017

Pei Hu Researching with the LLRC at Florida State University Spring 2017 Kristen Lemaster Program Coordinator in Inclusion Initiatives and Cultural

Competence at Vanderbilt University Spring 2017

Scott Levitt Housefellow and Coordinator in the Office of Community Standards and Integrity at Carnegie Mellon

Spring 2017

Grace Martin Student Engagement Manager at the College for Creative Studies

Spring 2017

Jordan Nation Assistant Director of Student Activities at the University of Chicago

Spring 2017

Kaileen Paige Program Coordinator for the Bauer College of Business at the University of Houston

Spring 2017

Lindsey Proulx Student Activities Nighttime Program Coordinator at Bryant University

Spring 2017

Amanda Roy Resident Director at the University of Washington Spring 2017 Erin Satterwhite Program Coordinator for Campus Visits at The Ohio State

University Spring 2017

Alyssa Shears Residence Hall Director at SUNY Cortland Residence Life and Housing

Spring 2017

Higher Education Program

41

Heather Stitely Assistant Director for the Center for Leadership and Social Change at Florida State University

Spring 2017

Terri Thomas Assistant Dean of Students at The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

Spring 2017

Dillon Warner Residence Director at the Savannah College of Art and Design

Spring 2017

Blake Weiss Pursuing his Ph.D. in Sociology at Florida State University Spring 2017 Jesse Wieland Assistant Director at the Office of National Fellowships Spring 2017 D’Evelyn Wymore

Academic Advisor for Advising First at Florida State University

Spring 2017

Hope Young Program Coordinator for Diverse Communities for Campus Life at Washington University

Spring 2017

Shelby Young Assistant Director Garnet & Gold Society in the Career Center at Florida State University

Spring 2017

Higher Education Program

42

13. Enrollment Trends

Enrollment & Recruitment Enrollment trends in the Higher Education program have remained relatively steady over the last seven (7) years. Slight fluctuations may appear but overall, the numbers are steady. The master’s degree program is limited by the number of available graduate assistantships which are detrimental to the success of the students in the program. So except for the odd year, 2012-2013 when 39 students were enrolled, we seek to maintain 28-30. Our applications are much higher, typically well over 100 per year. The doctoral program often attracts students who take a full-time job at FSU with the intent to pursue the doctoral program as well. Many of these students take courses as a “special” student before official applying to the program. Given the exposure to faculty during these courses, this step increases the likelihood of these students’ acceptance into the program. Thus, many of our doctoral students are full-time employees of the university. Full-time students continue to be attracted to our program but must find an available GA position to complete the degree. Increased grant funding has helped in recruitment as more research (RA) positions have been created. Data Inconsistencies We would like to point out several inconsistencies in the data received from Institutional Research and the College, as compared with data compiled by our department staff who coordinate admissions and enrollment. These frontline staff received applications and subsequent supporting materials, and thus we have more confidence in the numbers provided in Appendix E than those provided in Table 5. According to the data provided in Appendix E, the number of applications for the reported years are higher than those reflected in Table 5. One explanation has been that the program level data provided by our department staff represents “real-time” data, while the data from the other offices represent snapshots in time. These inconsistencies have been noted for quite some time, in fact during the previous QER. Unfortunately, the overall source of the inaccuracies is still unknown and continues to plague the department and program each semester. Despite these variations, our enrollment trends remain steady for each program, and we envision they will remain consistent. Recruitment Activities The Higher Education Program has been involved consistently in a number of recruitment activities over the past few years. These include:

• Tabling at graduate preparation fairs at FSU and national higher education conferences such as the ACPA: College Student Educators International Annual Convention, NASPA: Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education Annual Conference, NASPA-FL drive-in conference, and Southern Association for College Student Affairs annual conference

• Participating in virtual graduate school fairs including student, faculty, and staff representatives.

Higher Education Program

43

• Hosting virtual visits: interactive, live streaming panels to answer questions from prospective students in real time (new in fall 2017).

• Email outreach to McNair scholars with interest in higher education and student affairs. • Email outreach to our alumni network (LifeNet) through the Hardee Center to encourage

referrals. • The Higher Education Student Association (HESA) and LifeNet posting on social media

such as current student and alumni highlights, the most popular posts on the accounts. • Active posting on the Future Student Affairs Graduate Students page on Facebook to

answer questions about FSU’s programs and refer students to program staff. • Consistently update program flyers. • Coordinating individual campus visits for prospective students throughout the year. • Faculty regularly meeting with prospective students either in-person or over the phone,

particularly those interested in doctoral programs.

Admissions to Enrollment The program also focuses on encouraging strong admissions to enrollment trends through the following programs:

1. Visiting Days is a two-day campus visit program hosted each February. During the program students learn more about the curriculum and academic experiences available at FSU, interact with program faculty, interview for graduate assistantships as part of a coordinated placement process, and meet current students.

2. The program also has options for students to participate at a distance. A number of pre-Visiting Days Google Hangouts are hosted to share program information with prospective students and welcome them to FSU.

The Program Coordinator and program graduate assistant follow-up throughout the spring and summer with prospective students still looking for assistantship placement. They actively communicate with prospective students who desire to enroll and keep a running list of these students to provide employers if new assistantships open after Visiting Days.

HESA provides incoming students with a New Student Guide in mid-summer to assist in a smooth transition to Tallahassee and graduate study at FSU.

Improving Diversity The program serves a diverse body of domestic and some international students. The diversity in our program is reflected in different identities-racial/ethnic, gender, socioeconomic, and sexual orientation of our students. In addition, this diversity is also reflected in relation to full-time students and part-time working professionals, students taking traditional face-to-face courses and students learning in on-line and hybrid environments, and students who entered into our program right after finishing their undergraduate degrees and students returning to school after acquiring experience in the field. Given this diversity, we continue to be mindful of our mission to create a diverse community in our admission process. The faculty also works with HESA as indicated above to connect with student applicants. Such connections are particularly helpful to recruit members of the

Higher Education Program

44

underrepresented groups as these potential students often feel more comfortable discussing their questions with other students. We also are mindful of inclusion and diversity issues while nominating students for university level and national awards. We recognize the need to further explore and implement strategies to attract students from diverse backgrounds. Diversity is strong at present with high representation of both women and people of color. Our attention to diversity issues (and more recently, social justice) is well-known. We are especially proud of our current enrollment of African American men (10) and women (9) in our Higher Education doctoral program. Ongoing discussions about the integration of social justice in our program will likely result in additional discussions focused on student diversity. We see this as an area of growth for the program. Table 5. Admissions by Academic Plan, Academic Year (Fall Only):

Academic Plan Status Fall 2010

Fall 2011

Fall 2012

Fall 2013

Fall 2014

Fall 2015

Fall 2016

Higher Education - MS

Applied 95 124 97 113 99 112 133

Admitted 62 71 54 58 61 69 67

Enrolled 33 35 26 26 29 30 28 Acceptance Rate 65% 57% 56% 51% 62% 62% 50%

Show Rate 35% 28% 27% 23% 29% 27% 21%

Higher Education - EDD

Applied — — — — — 6 4

Admitted — — — — — 1 3

Enrolled — — — — — 1 2 Acceptance Rate 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 75%

Show Rate 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 50%

Higher Education - PHD

Applied 25 23 23 24 20 16 15

Admitted 15 14 9 8 13 10 10

Enrolled 6 4 3 3 4 6 6 Acceptance Rate 60% 61% 39% 33% 65% 63% 67%

Show Rate 24% 17% 13% 13% 20% 38% 40%

Higher Education Program

45

0

50

100

150

Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016

Higher Ed - MS

Applied Admitted Enrolled

0

5

10

Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016

Higher Ed - EdD

Applied Admitted Enrolled

0

10

20

30

Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016

Higher Ed - PhD

Applied Admitted Enrolled

Higher Education Program

46

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016

Higher Education - Enrollment

Higher Education - MS Higher Education - MS/Thesis

Higher Ed - EDD Higher Education - PHD

Higher Education Program

47

Enrollment Demographics:

Enrollment by Academic Plan, Year, Gender, Fall Semesters Only:

Academic Plan Fall 2010

Fall 2011

Fall 2012

Fall 2013

Fall 2014

Fall 2015

Fall 2016

Higher Education - MS 70 77 67 52 55 59 60

% of Female — — — 63% 56% 61% 65%

% of Male — — — 37% 44% 39% 35% Higher Education - MS/Thesis — — — — 1 1 —

% of Female — — — — 100% 100% —

% of Male — — — — — — —

Higher Ed - EDD — — — 14 9 7 11

% of Female — — — 43% 33% 14% 45%

% of Male — — — 57% 67% 86% 55%

Higher Education - PHD 51 45 39 32 38 34 44

% of Female — — — 66% 68% 68% 61%

% of Male — — — 34% 32% 32% 39%

0%

50%

100%

150%

MS - Female%

MS - Male % MT - Female%

MT - Male % EDD -Female %

EDD - Male%

PHD -Female %

PHD - Male%

Higher Education - Grad - Gender Demographics

Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016

Higher Education Program

48

14. Time to Degree The Higher Education program serves a diverse group of students in terms of racial, gender, and other differences as well as in their status as full-time, part-time, or part-time working professionals. The faculty are mindful of different demands and life situations of these students as they extend high quality education and support successful completion of all students. We offer a few formal mechanisms to assist with both masters and doctoral student time to degree. Appendix C details the time to degree and completions for doctoral students in higher education.

• Provide structured recommended course sequences- for both masters and doctoral students we provide recommended course sequences to help students better plan their programs of study. The 3-Year Course Calendar (Appendix K) also assists students in their planning efforts.

• Require Literature Review or Prospectus Development courses. Doctoral students are required to complete 1 of two courses designed to assist with dissertation preparation. The Literature Review course requires students to identify research questions and conduct a review of the relevant literature for their dissertations. In the Prospectus Development course students are required to develop a draft prospectus to share with their advisor. There has been a qualitative difference between students who complete these courses and those who do not.

• Complete Annual Doctoral Student Evaluation. The College requires each faculty member to provide a review of each doctoral student annually. These reviews identify completion of significant doctoral milestones and also are used by faculty to highlight potential challenges students may be facing in their programs.

• ProSeminar for new doctoral students. Starting in Fall 2016, first year doctoral students complete a zero credit hour ProSeminar. The course does not cost students tuition, but does count towards their program of study. The class serves as socialization function, providing students information regarding the doctoral process, small group interaction with program faculty, and cohort community building.

Higher Education Program

49

15. Graduate Student Preparation Professional Development and Exploration of Research Integrity The Higher Education Program benefits from a number of internal and external professional development opportunities for students.

• The Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies offers professional development opportunities throughout the year through the Relevant Research Roundtable (R3) series. The research sessions, where faculty (departmental, college and university) and advanced graduate students present their latest research, are intended to build a culture of scholarly inquiry and engagement. The graduate student development sessions, hosted by departmental faculty, are designed to assist students in various aspects of graduate studies and career development. Recent sessions have included applying for grants and fellowships to fund research and graduate study, developing a college course, preparing conference paper and session presentations, and multiple career trajectories post-doctoral degree. Session are live streamed for remote viewing and recorded for later viewing.

• The Higher Education Students Association (HESA) master’s and doctoral events chairs plan professional development sessions for current students. Recent events have included lunch-and-learn sessions such as current legal issues in higher education and managing attendance at large national conferences. HESA also provides summer internship search preparation and mock interviews for master’s students, and an annual preliminary exam preparation panel for doctoral students.

• The Hardee Center for Leadership and Ethics in Higher Education supports the professional development of graduate students in Higher Education through professional development seminars, speakers, travel grants, fellowships, research and publication opportunities, and mentoring programs.

• The Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies sets aside and allocates travel funding for students to present papers and sessions at regional, national, and international conferences.

Career Exploration/Preparation for Employment Outside of Academia Graduate study in higher education prepares individuals for careers in administration and leadership in public and private two-year colleges, four-year institutions, and universities. However, the program also prepares interested doctoral students for careers in public policy research organizations, both independent and connected with state/national government, through the degree and opportunities for individual professional development. Fulfillment of the Scholarly Engagement Requirement The Higher Education Program has developed a set of scholarly engagement requirements specifically designed to engage students in professional development throughout study. The requirements reflect deeper engagement with the scholarly community over time, from local opportunities and completion of the FSU Responsible Conduct of Research certification to presenting on research and ideas a regional and national conferences. The requirements are also flexible, acknowledging varied forms of engagement and professional paths in the field of higher education. The faculty advertise campus-based opportunities to complete scholarly engagement requirements through announcements over the doctoral student list-serv, prepares students to

Higher Education Program

50

publish by collaborating on research projects, and encourages students to present at conferences through professional development workshops and travel funding allocations. The following are the scholarly engagement requirements for doctoral students in Higher Education.

Higher Education Program Doctoral Scholarly Engagement Requirements Purpose: The goal of the Scholarly Engagement requirement is to prepare doctoral graduates who can acquire, evaluate, communicate, and extend knowledge through active participation in the scholarly community. New doctoral students are also expected to attend Proseminar sessions in their first year. Annual Confirmation of Scholarly Engagement: Each year, as part of the annual review process, doctoral students must demonstrate to their faculty advisor's satisfaction either 1) completion of any benchmark activity or 2) concrete progress toward the completion of any benchmark activity. Prerequisites to be completed before key milestones in doctoral progression: Certain benchmarks must be completed before students are allowed to 1) take the preliminary exam, 2) defend a proposal/prospectus, and 3) register for graduation. Scholarly Engagement Benchmarks

Before Preliminary Exam • Attend at least 2 Relevant Research Roundtable (R3) presentations • and Complete the FSU Responsible Conduct of Research certification

(http://humansubjects.magnet.fsu.edu/training/trainingslides.html)

Before Prospectus/Proposal Defense • Attend at least 1 prospectus defense as an observer • and attend at least 1 dissertation defense as an observer • and at least one of the following:

o Attend at least 1 national conference (professional or research association) o Attend an outside/external methodological workshop o Attend an FSU professional development seminar/workshop

Before Graduation

• Present as first or second author/presenter at a national conference • or Present as the first author/presenter at a state or regional conference • or Publish an article as the first or second author in a peer-review journal

(article accepted or “in press” by time of registration for graduation)

Higher Education Program

51

16. Scholarly/Creative Overview Faculty in the higher education program focus on three main areas of research creativity: leadership, social justice, and student success in higher education. Within these three broad areas, faculty members have a strong history of individual work, as well as collaboration within the program and outside the institution. From 2012 to 2017, our faculty have produced over 100 published journal articles, book chapters, and monographs. Across these three broad areas of research there is significant overlap, illustrating a scholarly agenda tackling complex problems in contemporary higher education.

Research in the area of leadership has resulted in 19 publications since 2012 on topics such as leadership education, leader identity development, and culturally relevant leadership learning. Much current work in this arena is collaborative in nature, and FSU’s strength in this area is reflected in the recent establishment of the Leadership Learning Research Center.

Research on social justice issues in higher education has resulted in 38 recent publications. Topics include equity and access to higher education, identity development, serving minority and first-generation college students, and gender and achievement in STEM fields. Additionally, faculty members have focused on mentoring and advising minority graduate students, as well as socialization and career development of faculty from minority backgrounds.

Student success work focuses mainly on the student experience in higher education and public policy issues in higher education, resulting in 58 publications since 2012. Works on the student experience include research on student development, student engagement in college, and persistence and graduation. Faculty affiliated with the Center for Postsecondary Success have explored administrative innovation, as well as developmental education and college gateway course success. Many of these works are tied to researching the impact of state-level public policy change – performance funding, developmental education reform, state merit aid programs. Finally, works on the historical development of the student affairs profession provide a foundation for understanding administrative aspects of student success work.

To view a full list of publications and related grant funding, click here.

Higher Education Program

52

17. Scholarly/Creative Productivity As of the 2016-2017 academic year, the scholarly productivity of the Higher Education program faculty, as a subset of the ELPS department, is very high. We are pleased to have a strong faculty with a variety of interests and skills who have increased scholarly productivity since the last QER in 2011. Several of our Higher Education faculty have current grants that are supporting their research and in many cases helping to support graduate students who contribute to the research and are also supported financially. Beyond grant activity, the Higher Education program has been very productive in terms of articles and book chapters as well as national and international presentations. In almost all cases, these are refereed articles and presentations which require peer review. As Table 6 demonstrates, our faculty are highly productive and in turn, they contribute to a strong national presence for the Higher Education program. Unfortunately, Table 6 does not include information about one of our faculty members, Dr. Kathy Guthrie. In addition to Table 6, we have included a report about Higher Education faculty scholarly productivity based on data from FSU’s Faculty Expertise and Advancement System (FEAS). Faculty are required to update their CVs in this on-line system on regular basis. Faculty’s promotion and tenure cases are decided based on the data available in this system. Faculty webpages provide access to the CV available in FEAS. Faculty citations summarized in the tables below, generated on 12/7/2017, are based on the selection of individually identified faculty that have CV information in the FEAS database. Citations with the following status are excluded from the analysis: Accepted, Contracted, Submitted. Averages are calculated by dividing the number of citations by the number of faculty. Eight (8) faculty were included in this analysis. Summaries of student research supervision and student collaborations are based on counts of student references from selected faculty CVs; students may be double counted if they appear in multiple faculty CVs; students graduated after reporting period are those with a graduation date on or after 2018. FEAS is also the data source to generate Table 6. Table 6, however, has used a different time period, either 2013-2016 or 2013-2017, to report on indicators such as peer-reviewed journals and book chapters. The data tables that we have included in our report present the current and most updated information on faculty scholarly productivity.

Finally, the following tables also provide an overview of faculty advising, teaching, and service. They show how the faculty, while maintaining high research and grant productivity, have also contributed to the department, college, and to higher education.

Higher Education Program

53

Higher Education Program

54

Constituent Faculty Included in This Summary Report Faculty Name CV Status Last Update Bertrand Jones, Tamara C Finalized by Faculty 12/7/2017 Cox, Bradley Finalized by Faculty 11/29/2017 Guthrie, Kathy L Finalized by Faculty 12/7/2017 Hu, Shouping Finalized by Faculty 11/27/2017 Mokher, Christine Renee Finalized by Faculty 11/15/2017 Perez-Felkner, Lara Christina Finalized by Faculty 12/4/2017 Schwartz, Robert A Finalized by Faculty 11/26/2017 Wetherell, Thomas K Finalized by Faculty 1/22/2014

Teaching Summary of Student Research Supervision

Level Supervisory

Committee Role Current Students Current

Candidates Graduated in

Reporting Period Doctoral Chair 30 19 25 Co-Chair 7 3 Univ. Rep. 5 18 14 Member 38 59 64 Master's Chair 73 66 Co-Chair Member 12 59 Bachelor's Chair Member 1 Summary of Non-Thesis Student Research Supervision

Research Category Level 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg.

Faculty-Driven Research Bachelor's 5 0.6 8 1.0 4 0.5 3 0.4 Doctorate 2 0.3 2 0.3 2 0.3 1 0.1

Independent Student Research Master's 1 0.1 1 0.1 Total 8 1.0 11 1.4 6 0.8 4 0.5

Higher Education Program

55

Research and Original Creative Work Publications

Category 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. Invited Journal Articles 1 0.1 4 0.5 1 0.1 Refereed Journal Articles 7 0.9 5 0.6 15 1.9 27 3.4 Refereed Books 1 0.1 Edited Monographs - Published Independently 2 0.3 Invited Book Chapters 2 0.3 Refereed Book Chapters 1 0.1 5 0.6 2 0.3 3 0.4 Refereed Monograph Chapters - Published Independently 1 0.1 Refereed Monograph Chapters - Published in Journal 3 0.4 1 0.1 Refereed Encyclopedia Entries 2 0.3 Invited Reviews - Published in Journal 1 0.1 Refereed Reviews - Published in Journal 2 0.3 Refereed Reports 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 Nonrefereed Reports 6 0.8 21 2.6 8 1.0 4 0.5 Invited Newsletter Articles 1 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.3 Total 18 2.3 40 5.0 32 4.0 42 5.3 All Student Collaborations - Publications

Category 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. Refereed Journal Articles 5 0.6 13 1.6 8 1.0 Refereed Book Chapters 1 0.1 Nonrefereed Reports 38 4.8 5 0.6 Total 0 0.0 44 5.5 13 1.6 13 1.6

Higher Education Program

56

Presentations

Category 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. Invited Papers at Conferences 1 0.1 2 0.3 Refereed Papers at Conferences 22 2.8 30 3.8 25 3.1 25 3.1 Invited Keynote and Plenary Presentations at Conferences 2 0.3 1 0.1 3 0.4 2 0.3 Invited Keynote and Plenary Presentations at Symposia 2 0.3 2 0.3 3 0.4 Invited Presentations at Conferences 1 0.1 1 0.1 Refereed Presentations at Conferences 5 0.6 17 2.1 15 1.9 7 0.9 Invited Presentations at Symposia 1 0.1 3 0.4 Invited Workshops 3 0.4 8 1.0 9 1.1 1 0.1 Refereed Workshops 1 0.1 Nonrefereed Workshops 1 0.1 1 0.1 Invited Lectures and Readings of Original Work 1 0.1 2 0.3 2 0.3 6 0.8 Total 38 4.8 68 8.5 58 7.3 41 5.1 All Student Collaborations - Presentations

Category 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. Refereed Papers at Conferences 18 2.3 23 2.9 11 1.4 11 1.4 Invited Keynote and Plenary Presentations at Conferences 1 0.1 Invited Presentations at Conferences 3 0.4 2 0.3 Refereed Presentations at Conferences 20 2.5 1 0.1 Invited Workshops 1 0.1 Total 21 2.6 26 3.3 32 4.0 12 1.5 Contracts and Grants

Category 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. Contracts and Grants Funded 25 3.1 24 3.0 21 2.6 18 2.3 Resource Grant 1 0.1 1 0.1 Contracts and Grants Pending 3 0.4 5 0.6 2 0.3 Contracts and Grants Denied 10 1.3 2 0.3 1 0.1 Total 36 4.5 30 3.8 26 3.3 21 2.6 Postdoctoral Supervision

Category 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. Postdoctoral Supervision 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 Total 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 0 0.0

Higher Education Program

57

Reviews of My Research and Original Creative Work by Other Authors (Bibliography)

Category 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. Reviews Appearing on a Web Site 4 0.5 Total 0 0.0 4 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 Additional Research or Original Creative Work Not Reported Elsewhere

Category 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. Op Ed 1 0.1 Additional Research or Original Creative Work Not Reported Elsewhere 1 0.1 Total 0 0.0 1 0.1 0 0.0 1 0.1

Service Florida State University

Category 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. FSU University Service 10 1.3 11 1.4 13 1.6 12 1.5 FSU College Service 10 1.3 11 1.4 11 1.4 10 1.3 FSU Department Service 10 1.3 9 1.1 13 1.6 18 2.3 FSU Institute or Center Service 5 0.6 6 0.8 5 0.6 6 0.8 FSU Program Service 12 1.5 7 0.9 9 1.1 9 1.1 Total 47 5.9 44 5.5 51 6.4 55 6.9 The Profession

Category 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. Editor for Refereed Journals 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 2 0.3 Series Editor for Books 1 0.1 1 0.1 Editorial Board Membership(s) 10 1.3 9 1.1 9 1.1 10 1.3 Guest Reviewer for Refereed Journals 26 3.3 30 3.8 33 4.1 36 4.5 Reviewer for Textbooks 2 0.3 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 Chair of a Symposium 1 0.1 Reviewer or Panelist for Grant Applications 5 0.6 5 0.6 3 0.4 5 0.6 Service to Professional Associations 18 2.3 20 2.5 15 1.9 21 2.6 Interviews 3 0.4 3 0.4 1 0.1 Total 65 8.1 69 8.6 64 8.0 77 9.6 Other Universities

Category 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. Service to Other Universities 6 0.8 4 0.5 7 0.9 6 0.8 Total 6 0.8 4 0.5 7 0.9 6 0.8

Higher Education Program

58

The Community

Category 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. Service to the Community 5 0.6 5 0.6 6 0.8 7 0.9 Total 5 0.6 5 0.6 6 0.8 7 0.9 Consultation

Category 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. Consultation 3 0.4 5 0.6 4 0.5 4 0.5 Total 3 0.4 5 0.6 4 0.5 4 0.5 Additional Service Not Reported Elsewhere

Category 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. Number Avg. Advisory Board 1 0.1 1 0.1 Expert Commentary in the Media 2 0.3 Host of Visiting Scholars 1 0.1 Total 0 0.0 2 0.3 3 0.4 0 0.0

Higher Education Program

59

18. Faculty Workload

As a unit of the ELPS department, faculty workload in ELP and HE programs are distributed based on annual Assignment of Responsibility reviews and contractual expectations from both the university and college as well as in the department. The baseline expectation for faculty is teaching two (2) courses per semester. Deviations from that expectation are allowed for grant activity or administrative assignment (e.g., the department chair is granted one course release per term as determined by the Dean’s Office). The merit review system, overseen by the ELPS Faculty Development committee, also reviews workload and assignment as a measure of consistency between faculty as well as in determining merit on an annual basis. Committee work is acknowledged in the merit review process, including committee chair responsibilities and the like. Graduate student committee work is also subject to merit review. In order to document and reward these activities, ELPS Faculty Development Committee conducts these peer evaluations annually. The committee is currently engaged in a project to diversify this process in order to better accommodate its clinical faculty. This point-based-evaluation system is used by the department chair to distribute merit pay. In addition to review for merit by the ELPS Faculty Development committee, the annual review of each faculty member by the ELPS department chair is also an opportunity for review of and discussion about faculty workload. The willingness of ELP and HE faculty to take on leadership roles in different initiatives has been central to the successful working of the ELPS department. Particularly impressive is the performance of the junior faculty in both programs who continue to shoulder significant load of graduate advising and service. As a department, we continue to explore ways to support and reward such good citizenship.

Higher Education Program

60

19. Faculty Retention

At present, there are few, if any issues that appear to negatively affect faculty retention. Over the years between now and the previous QER, the department has been very successful in recruiting new faculty and in all cases, successfully navigating the path to promotion and tenure for new faculty. The department presently has three faculty who moved from Assistant to Associate in 2016; three (3) faculty who were promoted to Full Professor in 2010, 2012, and 2016. It should also be noted that the department has requested “early” promotion and tenure for two new faculty, one of whom was a Higher Education faculty member. The department is very proud of our support of new, junior faculty and work hard on not only recruitment of new faculty as needed, but have an excellent record of retaining and promoting those individuals. The department does anticipate vacancies in the next five (5) years due to retirement but does not yet have in place a specific strategy for replacement. At present, those retirements are not fixed by a pre-determined date or plan as might be outlined by the DROP program or other timeline. Three senior faculty, Professors Herrington, Schwartz, and Wetherell are be the most likely to retire within the next five years but we do not anticipate nor do we have specific dates in mind. In terms of diversity, the department has made efforts to encourage and support diversity in our faculty hires over the last seven (7) years with mixed success. We do have a diverse faculty in terms of gender and race but would like to increase our representation of faculty from diverse backgrounds. We currently have a search in process for two new faculty in the Center for Leadership Studies and every effort is being made to encourage applications from diverse faculty. Our programs and academic efforts include strong representation of diversity including our Summer Research BootCamp, sponsored by the Sisters of the Academy, a program designed to assist Black women doctoral students and early career faculty. We have also increased our diversity among doctoral students in particular so the effort is there and successful.

Higher Education Program

61

20. Teaching Assistants Proportion of Course Offerings Taught by Graduate Assistants The proportion of course offerings taught by graduate assistants is very limited, in large part due to the fact that most of our courses are at the graduate level. We do utilize doctorally-prepared adjuncts from around campus or in the community to supplement some of our programs. Graduate Teaching Instructor Selection, Training, Mentoring, and Monitoring The undergraduate teaching load is high only in the Leadership Certificate (LDR) program as it is an undergraduate certificate. Graduate assistants who teach in the LDR program, mostly doctoral students, are under the direct supervision of the LDR faculty and staff. Other teaching assistants are under the direct supervision of the instructor for the course they serve. In addition, all of our teaching assistants attend the Program for Instructional Excellence (PIE), which is a university requirement to hire any teaching assistant. The PIE website describes its objectives as follows “The PIE workshops include sessions that provide graduate students with teaching policy training requirements as stated in the University-wide TA Standards along with best practices in grading, communicating with students, and Canvas and technology usage. This TA training is delivered partly face-to-face and partly online via Blackboard, the centrally supported course management system at FSU.” (http://pie.fsu.edu)

Higher Education Program

62

Higher Education Program

63

21. Adequacy of Resources Facilities Our facilities in the Stone Building and to an extent in the Dunlap Center (LLRC and LDR) are adequate for our current needs. We have recently benefitted from a re-decorating scheme funded by the College of Education which included new cabinets, ceiling tiles, painting, and remodeling of the kitchen and reception areas, all of which has greatly enhanced the ELPS suite. Technology Our access to and use of technology has been adequate. We have utilized the Technology fee opportunities to expand and add to our current technology in the ELPS department. Upgrades and access to the latest software is sometimes limited but overall, we are satisfied. One noteworthy aspect of technology is the College’s technology support staff. There is a ticket system for items ranging from software or hardware price quotes, to general maintenance issues. The staff response centers on timely, helpful solutions helpful. Staff Support As a department and at the program level, we have been very lucky and extremely pleased with the high level of support from our excellent staff including Theresa Harrell, Dept. Manager; Jimmy Pastrano, Graduate Program Advisor; Linda Lyons, our Admissions Specialist; and Mary Ranieri Peterson who handles travel, student evaluations, and most fiscal transactions. Mary is moving to the Daytona area soon due to family re-location and we will be hard-pressed to replace her as she has been with us longer than any other staff- over 17 years.

Higher Education Program

64

22. University Libraries The University Libraries have been an excellent support for our faculty and students over the years. The University Library Liaison to the College of Education, Ms. Gloria Colvin, retired this past May (2017) which was a great loss as Gloria was well-known and highly valued by our faculty and students alike. She would come to classes to speak, held regular office hours in the Stone Building on every Wednesday afternoon, and was acknowledged personally in many, many dissertations. Her replacement, Michelle Demeter, has been available this Fall and appears to be eager to follow in Gloria Colvin’s same path.

Higher Education Program

65

23. Five-Year Outlook The Higher Education program at Florida State has now celebrated its 60 year in existence which is a very significant heritage. Over that time, the program has seen a variety of students and faculty, as well as changes in curriculum and program activities. It is clear, however, that the program is and has been very successful at preparing and producing new professionals at the master’s level and developing scholars and leaders at the doctoral level. With the addition of the Center for Postsecondary Success (CPS), the Leadership Learning Research Center and the Leadership Certificate, as well as the Institutional Research Certificate, the program has continued to advance its reputation at the national and often the international level. It is our hope that these efforts result in attracting more diverse, competitive, and academically qualified doctoral students. Over the next five years, we project continued integration of the three pillars, an increased focus on producing faculty members, development of an integrated marketing plan, and solidify decisions regarding expanding our doctoral offering. Integrate Leadership, Student Success, and Social Justice As we continue to articulate and identify the ways that leadership, student success, and social justice manifest in our program, we forecast a stronger synergy amongst our three pillars in teaching, research, and service. This will result in increased collaboration, communication, and coordination between the faculty and respective centers, academic courses, and overall program functionality. We plan to align our curriculum to these pillars and develop intentional strategies for reinforcing these ideas in our teaching. Increase Production of Higher Education Faculty and Researchers The high expectations of our faculty, most of whom are tenure-track, research-oriented individuals, has resulted in a strenuous but manageable academic path for students. As evidenced in our graduates’ placement in the last three years, more students are considering and landing faculty positions. As our program has committed to producing highly competent administrators, researchers and faculty members, we envision these numbers will increase. An increase in student presentations at the Association for the Study of Higher Education is evidence of this shift. Develop Integrated Marketing Plan One strategy for improving rankings, in addition to improving the overall quality of our program, lies in communicating those improvements to external audiences. Developing an integrated marketing plan that highlights the accomplishments of faculty and students in contributing to the knowledge and practice of higher education. A product that contains articles, pictures, narratives, and other data that demonstrates ALL the ways the Higher Education program is indeed as exemplary as we think. Consider Online Offerings As mentioned earlier, the other programs in the department have collaborated on the Educational Leadership and Policy Ed.D. program. Higher Education faculty have agreed to continue to monitor student interest and enrollment in the program to determine our next steps for involvement. We have several options we have identified:

Higher Education Program

66

Create a Higher Education track in current Ed.D.. We have several relevant higher education online courses that could be combined to create a track in the online Ed.D. program to support students who have interest in higher education.

Create a separate online Higher Education doctoral program. While this seems duplicative, we have considered offering an online Ph.D. program to address the specific professional and academic needs of higher education professionals who are interested in pursuing a doctorate from an institution like FSU, but are unable to relocate to Tallahassee. We believe offering a relevant, rigorous online program would help meet the needs of these students.

Create Executive Doctorate Program. A former state college leader explored this option thoroughly for the FSU program. While initially excited about the possible revenue generated by such an endeavor, along with the visibility created, faculty began to reconsider the resources, both human and financial, required for such an endeavor. Instead of making a hasty decision, the Higher Education faculty decided to table this discussion until further notice.

Higher Education Program

67

Appendices Appendix A: Table 8. Graduate Application/Enrollment Funnel Appendix B: Table 9. Graduate Program Enrollment Trends Appendix C: Ph.D. Time to Degree Appendix D: Graduate Student Support Sources Appendix E: Higher Education Program Enrollment Tracking 2011-2016 Appendix F: M.S. Program of Study & Course Sequence Appendix G: Ed.D. Program of Study & Course Sequence Appendix H: Ph.D. Program of Study & Course Sequence Appendix I: M.S. Handbook Appendix J: Doctoral Handbook Appendix K: 3-Year Course Calendar Appendix L: Peer Review Evaluation Form

Higher Education Program

68

APPENDIX A

Higher Education Program

69

APPENDIX B

Higher Education Program

70

APPENDIX C Doctoral Completion Tables – 2017-18

Higher Education

Completion Data – Doctoral

Cohort Year

Number of entering doctoral students

Number of students who left the program without a master’s or

doctoral degree

Number of students who left the

program after receiving a master’s

degree

Number of students

admitted to doctoral

candidacy 2016-17 20 1 0 0 2015-16 9 0 0 4 2014-15 13 0 0 8 2013-14 8 0 0 8 2012-13 5 0 0 5 2011-12 5 1 0 4 2010-11 8 0 0 8

Time to Degree – Doctoral

Cohort Year

3 years or less

4 years

5 years

6 years

7 years

8 years

9 years

10 years

Number still enrolled after

10 years 2016-17 2015-16 2014-15 1 2013-14 1 1 2012-13 1 1 2011-12 1 3 2010-11 1 1 2 1

Higher Education Program

71

APPENDIX D Funding Sources for Graduate Student Support

Higher Ed - Funding Sources for Grad Student Support – Doctoral

Fall 2017* Fall 2016 Fall 2015 Fall 2014 Fall 2013

Scholarships 8 11 4 4 2 University Fellowship — 1 — — 1 External Fellowship — — — — — Scholarships 8 10 4 4 1 Percent on Scholarship 14.8% 20.0% 9.8% 8.5% 4.3%

Assistantship 19 12 8 13 11 E&G Funded (110, 140) 12.5 6 5 9 8 Foundation Funded (545, 547) 2 1 0.5 — — Distance Learning Funded

(Auxiliary) (3xx) 1.5 3 1.5 4 2.5

C&G/External (5xx) 3 2 1 — — Other (6xx) — — — — 0.5 Percent on Assistantships 35.2% 21.8% 19.5% 27.7% 28.3%

Self-Funded 27 32 29 30 33.5 Percent Self-Funded 50.0% 58.2% 70.7% 63.8% 72.8%

Total Number of Students 54 55 41 47 46

* Fall 2017 as of 03 October 2017

Higher Education Program

72

APPENDIX E Higher Education Program Enrollment Tracking 2011-2016

Higher Education Program- 2016

Program Applied Admitted Percentage Admitted Enrolled

Percentage of admitted enrolled

Percentage Applied Enrolled

M.S. 153 70 45.75% 29 41.43% 18.95% Ed.D. 8 7 87.50% 7 100.00% 87.50% Ph.D. 22 17 77.27% 13 76.47% 59.09%

Higher Education Program 2015

Program Applied Admitted Percentage Admitted Enrolled

Percentage of admitted enrolled

Percentage Applied Enrolled

M.S. 142 71 50.00% 32 45.07% 22.54% Ed.D. 6 3 50.00% 1 33.33% 16.67% Ph.D. 16 11 68.75% 8 72.73% 50.00%

Higher Education Program 2014*

Program Applied Admitted Percentage Admitted Enrolled

Percentage of admitted enrolled

Percentage Applied Enrolled

M.S. 99 61 61.62% 29 47.54% 29.29% Ed.D./Ph.D. 20 13 65.00% 7 53.85% 35.00% 3 Ed.D. & 4 Ph.D. enrolled

Higher Education Program 2013*

Program Applied Admitted Percentage Admitted Enrolled

Percentage of admitted enrolled

Percentage Applied Enrolled

M.S. 117 59 50.43% 27 45.76% 23.08% Ed.D./Ph.D. 33 16 48.48% 12 75.00% 36.36% 1 Ed.D. & 11 Ph.D enrolled

Higher Education Program

73

Higher Education Program 2012*

Program Applied Admitted Percentage Admitted Enrolled

Percentage of admitted enrolled

Percentage Applied Enrolled

M.S. 103 59 57.28% 29 49.15% 28.16% Ed.D./Ph.D. 41 21 51.22% 14 66.67% 34.15% No Ed.D./Ph.D. breakdown available Higher Education Program 2011*

Program Applied Admitted Percentage Admitted Enrolled

Percentage of admitted enrolled

Percentage Applied Enrolled

M.S. 137 76 55.47% 38 50.00% 27.74% Ed.D./Ph.D. 28 17 60.71% 7 41.18% 25.00% No Ed.D./Ph.D. breakdown available *Before 2015, university systems tracked Ed.D. and Ph.D. combined. No breakdown by degree is available other than the number enrolled.

Higher Education Program

74

APPENDIX F M.S. Program of Study & Course Sequence

Core Courses (33 hours)

• EDH 5051 Higher Education in America: Basic Understandings (3) • EDH 5045 Student Development Theories (3) • SDS 5040 Introduction to Student Affairs (3) • EDH 5046 Diversity in Higher Education (3) • EDH 5078 Outcomes Assessment in Higher Education I (3) • EDH 5931 Leadership Education and Learning (3) • SDS 5804 Practicum in Student Personnel (3) • EDF 5481 Methods of Educational Research (3) • EDH 5630 Capstone in Higher Education (3) • EDH 5944 Internships or Thesis (6** see note below)

Electives (minimum 6 hours)

• EDH 5042 Student Success in College (3) – recommended elective • EDH 5405 Legal Aspects of College (3) – recommended elective • EDH 5639 Management in Higher Education (3) – recommended elective • EDH 5054 The American Community College (3) • EDH 5506 College & University Business Administration (3) • EDH 5055 Introduction to Institutional Research (3) • EDH 5305 College Teaching: Instruction (3) • EDH 5504 Institutional Advancement in Higher Education (3) • EDF 5519 History of Higher Education (3) • EDH 5005 Sociology of Higher Education/Sociology of Education (EDF 5630) (3) • EDH 5506 College and University Business Administration (3) • EDH 6067 International Perspectives in Higher Education (3) • EDH 5095 Strategic Planning in Higher Education (3) • EDH 5507 College and University Budgeting (3) • EDH 6505 Finance in Higher Education (3) • EDH 6064 Women in Higher Education (3) • EDH 5089 Black and Latino Education: History and Policy (3)

(Other higher education courses may be substituted with consent of advisor)

Higher Education Program

75

Recommended Course Sequence (M.S.)

Fall–Year One (2017) Spring–Year One (2018) Summer–Year One (2018) EDH 5051: Higher Education in America: Basic Understandings

EDH 5046: Diversity in Higher Education

SDS 5804: Practicum in Student Personnel

EDH 5045: Student Development Theories

EDF 5068: Outcomes of Undergraduate Education

Optional: Internship/Elective

SDS 5040: Introduction to Student Affairs

EDH 5931: Leadership Education and Learning

Total Hours: 9 Total Hours: 9 Total Hours: 3 (6**) Fall–Year Two (2018) Spring–Year Two (2019)

EDF 5481: Methods of Educational Research

EDH 5630: Capstone in Higher Education

Higher Ed. Elective Higher Ed. Elective

EDH 5944: Internship** EDH 5944: Internship** Total Hours: 9 Total Hours: 9 Program Total: 39 Hours

**The M.S. degree requires 6 total internship hours. This can be done in Summer Year One or Fall/Spring Year Two. Internships can be taken during Summer, Fall or Spring after completing two full semesters of coursework. This allows flexibility in the course offerings after one year of required courses.

Higher Education Program

76

APPENDIX G Ed.D. Program of Study & Course Sequence

Higher Education Core (21 hours) EDH 5051 Higher Education in America (3) EDH 5405 Legal Aspects of College and University Administration (3) EDH 5506 College and University Business Administration (3) EDH 5639 Strategic Management in Higher Education (3) EDH 6505 Finance of Higher Education (3) EDH 6635 Organization and Governance (3) EDH 6936 Seminar in Student Development Theories (3) EDH TBD Pro Seminar (0) Higher Education Foundations (12 hours) EDH 6067 International Perspectives in Higher Education or EDF 5089 Black and Latino Education: History and Policy (3) EDH 6081 Leading Change in Higher Education (3) EDH 6085 Social Justice in Higher Education (3) EDH 6401 Public Policy in Higher Education (3) Research Core (18 hours) EDF 6486 Applied Research Methods in Ed Leadership and Policy (3) EDF 5935 Introduction to Quantitative Analysis for Education Policy (3) EDF 6475 Qualitative Methods of Education Research (3) EDF 5461 Introduction to Program Evaluation (3) EDH 5068 Outcomes of Undergraduate Education (3) EDA 6930 Literature Review (or EDH 6935 Prospectus Development) (3) Higher Education or Related Electives (6 hours) EDH 5042 Student Success in College (3) EDH 5054 The American Community College (3) EDH 5055 Introduction to Institutional Research (3) EDH 5305 College Teaching: Instruction (3) EDH 5504 Institutional Advancement in Higher Education (3) EDF 5519 History of Higher Education (3) EDH 5005 Sociology of Higher Education/Sociology of Education (EDF 5630) (3) EDH 5095 Strategic Planning in Higher Education (3) EDH 5507 College and University Budgeting (3) EDH 6064 Women in Higher Education (3) EDH 5089 Black and Latino Education: History and Policy (3) EDF 5624 Economic of Education (3) EDH 5931 Special Topics: Politics of Higher Education (3) EDH 6040 Research on College Students EDH 5931 Special Topics: College Student Populations (3)

Dissertation (24 hours) EDH 8964 Preliminary Examination (0) (Spring, Summer)

Higher Education Program

77

EDH 6980 Dissertation Hours (24) EDH 9985 Dissertation Defense (0)

Recommended Course Sequence (Ed.D.) ** Alternating semesters – Fall Year 2 & 3 can look different for different cohorts

Fall Year 1 (2017) Spring Year 1 (2018) Summer Year 1 (2018) • EDH 5051 HE in America • EDF 6486 Applied

Research Methods in Ed Leadership & Policy

• EDH 6936 Sem in Stu Dev Theories

• Pro Seminar (0)

• EDH 6635 Org & Gov • EDF 5935 Intro

Quantitative Analysis for Ed. Policy

• EDF 6475 Qualitative Methods for Ed. Research

• EDH 6505 Finance of HE (B)

• HE Elective

Fall Year 2 (2018) Spring Year 2 (2019) Summer Year 2 (2019) • EDH 5405 Legal Aspects of

College and Univ Admin • EDH 6081 Leading Change

in Higher Education** • EDH 6401 Public Policy

• EDH 5068 Outcomes of HE • EDH 5639 Strategic

Management • EDH 5506 College and

University Business Admin

• Elective/Adv. methods course(s)

Fall Year 3 (2019) Spring Year 3 (2020) • EDH 6085 Social Justice in

HE ** • EDF 5461 Intro to Program

Eval • HE elective

• EDH 6935 Prospectus Development

• EDH 6067 International Perspectives in HE **

Higher Education Program

78

APPENDIX H Ph.D. Program of Study & Course Sequence

Higher Education Core (9 hours) EDH 5051 Higher Education in America (3) EDH 6635 Organization and Governance (3) EDH 6936 Seminar in Student Development Theories (3) EDH #TBD Pro Seminar (0) Specialization (Specified Track: Public Policy or Student Affairs) (18 hours) Public Policy: EDH 6505 Finance of Higher Education (3) EDH 6401 Public Policy in Higher Education (3) EDH 5005 Sociology of Higher Education (3) (or EDH 5630 Sociology of Education) (3) EDF 5652 Policy Development (3) EDH 5931 Politics of Higher Education (3) EDF 5624 Economics of Education (3) Student Affairs: EDH 5931 Seminar on College Student Populations (3) EDH 6040 Research on College Students (3) EDH 6081 Leading Change in Higher Education (3) (Alt. Fall Terms) EDH 6085 Social Justice in Higher Education (3) (Alt. Fall Terms) Choose 1 Technology course: EDH 5309 Technology in Higher Education (3) EME 6414 Web 2.0 based learning and performance (3) EME 5457 Intro to distance learning: Trends and issues (3)

Choose 1 of the following courses: EDF 5089 Black and Latino Education: History and Policy (3) EDH 6067 International Perspectives in Higher Education (3) (Fall) EDF 5519 History of Higher Education in America (3) (Alt. Spring Terms) EDH 5005 Sociology of Higher Education (3) (or EDH 5630 Sociology of Education)

(3) EDH 6401 Public Policy in Higher Education (3)

Discipline Courses (9 hours) - work with major professor All Ph.D. students must complete 9 credit hours for an outside discipline. In consultation with the student’s advisor a student selects a discipline or specialization outside of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies. Research Core (minimum 21 hours) EDF 6486 Applied Research Methods in Educational Leadership & Policy (3) EDF 5935 Introduction to Quantitative Analysis for Education Policy (3) EDF 6475 Qualitative Methods of Education Research (3) EDF 5935 Applied Regression (3) Advanced Methods I (3) Advanced Methods II (3)

Higher Education Program

79

EDA 6930 Literature Review (or EDH 6935 Prospectus Development) (3) Dissertation (24 hours) EDH 8964 Preliminary Examination (0) (Spring, Summer) EDH 6980 Dissertation Hours (24) EDH 9985 Dissertation Defense (0) Advanced Methods Course Recommendations: EDF 5414 Introduction to Large Scale Datasets (Fall) EDF 5935 Special Topics: Quasi-Experimental Methods (Alt. Spring Terms) EDF 6476 Advanced Qualitative Methods (Spring) EDF 6479 Qualitative Data Analysis (Summer)

Higher Education Program

80

Recommended Course Sequence (Ph.D.) ** Alternating semesters – Fall Year 2 & 3 can look different for different cohorts Fall Year 1 (2017) Spring Year 1 (2018) Summer Year 1 (2018)

All

• EDH 5051 HE in America • EDF 6486 Applied

Research Methods in Ed Leadership & Policy

• EDH 6936 Sem in Stu Dev Theories

• Pro Seminar (0)

• EDH 6635 Org & Gov • EDF 5935 Intro

Quantitative Analysis for Ed. Policy

• EDF 6475 Qualitative Methods for Ed. Research

Publ

ic

Polic

y

• EDH 6505 Finance of HE (B)

• Discipline course/Adv. methods course(s)

Stud

ent

Affa

irs

• EDH 5309 Technology in Higher Education or Web 2.0 (C)

• Discipline course/Adv. methods course(s)/”Choose 1”

Fall Year 2 (2018) Spring Year 2 (2019) Summer Year 2 (2019)

All • Discipline/Elective/Adv. methods course(s)

Publ

ic

Polic

y • EDH 6401 Public Policy • EDF 5935 Applied

Regression • EDF 5652 Politics of HE **

• EDH 5005 Sociology of HE **

• EDH 5652 Policy Dev • Discipline course/Adv.

methods

Stud

ent

Affa

irs

• EDF 5935 Applied Regression

• EDH 6081 Leading Change in Higher Education**

• Adv. methods/Discipline course/“Choose 1”

• EDH 5931 Research on College Students **

• Adv. methods/Discipline course/“Choose 1”

Fall Year 3 (2019) Spring Year 3 (2020)

All • EDA 6930 Lit Review • Discipline/Elective/Adv.

methods course(s)

Publ

ic

• EDF 5624 Econ of Ed • Discipline course(s)/Adv.

Methods

Stud

ent

Affa

irs • EDH 6085 Social Justice in

HE ** • Discipline course(s)/Adv.

methods

• EDH 5931 Seminar on College Student Populations **

Higher Education Program

APPENDIX I M.S. Handbook

Higher Education Program

APPENDIX J Doctoral Handbook

Higher Education Program

APPENDIX K

3-Year Course Calendar

HE 3 YR Schedule (Updated 10/11/2017) Y1: 2017-18 Y2: 2018-19 Y3: 2019-20

Instructor(s) X = F2F O = Online FA 1 SP 1 SM 1 FA 2 SP 2 SM 2 FA 3 SP 3 SM 3 HE Masters (39) EDH 5051 Higher Ed in America X X X Schwartz EDH 5046 Diversity in Higher Ed X X X Bertrand Jones EDH 5078 Outcomes Assessment in Higher Education I X X X Perez-Felkner

SDS 5804 Practicum in Student Personnel X X X Guthrie EDH 5630 Capstone in Higher Education X X X Bowden EDF 5931 Outcomes of Assessment in Higher Education II X X X Perez-Felkner EDH 5931 Leadership Education & Learning X X X Guthrie SDS 5040 Introduction to Student Affairs X X X Coburn EDH 5045 Student Development Theories X X X Cox EDH 5944 Internship or Thesis (6 hours) X X X X X X X X X COE Staff HE Elective (6) - see below for options COE Staff

HE PhD Core - Discipline Courses (9) FA 1 SP 1 SM 1 FA 2 SP 2 SM 2 FA 3 SP 3 SM 3 EDH 5051 Higher Ed in America X X X Schwartz EDH 6635 Organization and Governance X X X Mokher EDH 6936 Seminar in Student Development Theories X X X Cox

HE PhD Student Affairs Specialization (18) FA 1 SP 1 SM 1 FA 2 SP 2 SM 2 FA 3 SP 3 SM 3 EDH 5931 Seminar on College Student Populations X X Cox EDH 6040 Research on College Students O Hu

Higher Education Program

EDH 6081 Leading Change in Higher Education X Guthrie EDH 6085 Social Justice in Higher Education X X Bertrand Jones EDH 5309 Technology in Higher Education or technology course (3)

O (B) O (B) O Staff (Ahlquist)

HE PhD Public Policy Specialization (18) FA 1 SP 1 SM 1 FA 2 SP 2 SM 2 FA 3 SP 3 SM 3 EDH 6505 Finance in Higher Education O O O Hu EDH 6401 Public Policy in Higher Education X X X Mokher EDH 5005 Sociology of Higher Education (or EDF 5630) X Perez-Felkner EDF 5630 Sociology of Education X X Perez-Felkner EDF 5652 Policy Development X X X COE Staff EDF 5931 Politics of Higher Education X COE Staff EDF 5624 Economics of Education X X X Park

HE EdD Core + Foundations Required (33) FA 1 SP 1 SM 1 FA 2 SP 2 SM 2 FA 3 SP 3 SM 3 EDH 5051 Higher Ed in America X X X Schwartz EDH 6505 Finance of Higher Education O O O Hu EDH 6635 Organization and Governance X X X Mokher EDH 6936 Seminar in Student Development Theories X X X Cox EDH 5639 Management in Higher Education O O O Staff (Palazesi) EDH 5506 College and University Business Administration O O O Staff (Crowell) EDH 5405 Legal Aspects of College and Univ Administration X X X Staff (Jackson) EDH 6401 Public Policy in Higher Education X X X Mokher EDH 6081 Leading Change in Higher Education X Guthrie EDH 6067 International Perspectives in Higher Education O Hu EDH 6085 Social Justice in Higher Education X X Bertrand Jones

Higher Education Program

HE Elective (9) HE Doctoral Research Courses FA 2 SP 2 SM 2 FA 3 SP 3 SM 3 FA 2 SP 2 SM 2 EDF 6486 Applied Research Methods for Ed Leadership & Policy X X X COE Staff EDA 6930 Literature Review X X X Bertrand Jones EDH 6935 Prospectus Development X X X Iatarola EDF 6475 Qualitative Methods in Educational Research X X X Khurshid EDF 5464 Qualitative Methods for Program Evaluation (sub for EDF 6475) X X X X X X Schrader(F)/Adjunct(S EDF 5461 Introduction to Program Evaluation X O X O X O Schrader EDH 5068 Outcomes of Undergraduate Education O O O Staff (Peerenboom)

HE Electives FA 2 SP 2 SM 2 FA 3 SP 3 SM 3 FA 2 SP 2 SM 2 EDH 5405 Legal Aspects of College and Univ Administration X X X Staff (Jackson) EDH 5639 Management in Higher Education O O O Staff (Palazesi) EDH 5054 American Community College O O Wetherell EDF 5519 History of Higher Education X X Schwartz EDF 5517 History of Education in the U.S. X Schwartz EDH 5931 Critical Theory in Education Bertrand Jones EDH 6064 Women in Higher Education X Schwartz EDF 5089 Black and Latino Education: History & Policy X X Schwartz EDH 5042 Student Success in College O O O Hu EDH 5504 Institutional Advancement Wetherell

Higher Education Program

APPENDIX L Peer Review Form for Instruction

Higher Education Program

Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies (ELPS) College of Education

Florida State University Peer Evaluation Policy

Adopted March 24,1998 A formative process of peer evaluation of teaching offers the opportunity for faculty to learn more about the content and teaching approaches of other faculty and contributes to a process of continuous improvement. The chair will insure that all ELPS faculty arrange for a peer observation and assessment annually. In arranging for a peer assessment of teaching, a faculty member will invite a member of the teaching faculty to observe in the classroom. This observation should include both a lecture/ discussion and a cooperative learning activity led by the instructor. If necessary, more than one observation should be arranged in order that both types of teaching can be observed. Most observations will be a minimum of one hour. Procedure In preparation for the observation, the instructor and observer should arrange a pre-observation conference at which they can discuss the appropriate date, time, and place for the observation. At this conference, instructor and observer should agree on what criteria will be used to assess performance in the lecture/discussion and cooperative learning activity. The instructor should provide the observer with a copy of the course syllabus and any other materials that stipulate the goals, objectives, outcomes, and methods of student evaluation used in the course. The date for a postconference discussion of the observation and evaluation may also be arranged. The evaluator may also review selected course documents such as syllabus, handouts, and lecture notes to assess appropriateness of currency, clarity, and student workload.

At the beginning of the classroom observation the observer should be introduced to the students and her or his purpose for being present explained to the students. During the observation, the observer should remain unobtrusive and record his or her observations of the instructor's and students' behavior. The observer should not comment during the course of the evaluation or join in any classroom activities. At the conclusion of the observation, when the instructor calls for a class break or is prepared to adjourn, the observer should be provided a period of ten minutes in which to explain the purpose of the observation to the students. During this meeting with the observer, the instructor should not be present in the classroom. At this time, the observer should ask students whether the class observed was representative of the instructor's previous instruction, and may solicit comment on (1) the student's perceptions of what the instructor does well in teaching and (2) what areas of improvement in the instructor's teaching they would recommend.

Following the observation, a post-conference discussion should be held between instructor and observer. This observation should include an opportunity for the instructor to provide a self-assessment of his or her teaching performance, emphasizing what he or she believes was done well and what improvements can be made. After the instructor has had an opportunity to present the self-assessment, the observer should offer guidance based on the criteria that were agreed upon in the pre-conference, emphasizing what the observer believes was done well and what improvements are recommended. At the conclusion of this discussion, the observer should provide feedback on student perceptions (insuring that student anonymity is

Higher Education Program

preserved) and offer suggestions to the instructor on how the syllabus and related materials can be improved.

At the conclusion of the post-conference, the observer should prepare a letter to the instructor indicating when the observation took place, highlighting particular strengths of the instructor's performance, and noting any recommendations for improvement. This letter should be based on the post-conference discussion. The letter should be given to the instructor as a follow-up to the observation. No additional documentation of the peer evaluation should be undertaken without the consent of the teacher being observed. Criteria and Indicators The following criteria and indicators are recommended for the conduct of an observation, but are by no means inclusive. The observer and instructor should agree on the specific criteria that will be applied in any observation. In most cases, selected criteria should be limited in order to avoid making the observation too complicated for effective assessment. Criteria: The instructor uses a variety of teaching and learning strategies that reflect the diversity of student learning styles, background, and experience. Indicators: Provides a range of activities and assignments to meet the various students' learning styles. Uses appropriate teaching techniques to effectively instruct students. Uses a range of materials, technology, and resources to assist all students to learn. Creates a climate of openness, mutual respect, and support for inquiry and discussion. Criteria: The instructor uses assessment strategies to assist the continuous development of the learner. Indicators: Uses a range of measures to assess student learning and design learning experiences. Plans and implements assessment consistent with desired performance outcomes and course objectives. Provides timely feedback to students on performance. Criteria: The instructor plans and implements effective instruction in the classroom. Indicators: Engages students in learning activities. Maintains academic focus of students by using verbal, nonverbal, and visual cues. Provides clear directions for instructional activities. Uses an interdisciplinary approach to learning and integrates multiple subject areas. Relates concepts through more than one method, such as analogies, metaphors, graphics, and models. Emphasizes links between theory and practice and connections to professional development. Criteria: The instructor creates a positive learning environment. Indicators: Stimulates student reflection on previously acquired knowledge. Links new knowledge and ideas to already familiar ideas. Uses classroom time efficiently. Presents concepts and principles at varying levels of complexity so that they are meaningful to students at varying levels of development. Organizes instruction to include cooperative, student directed groups. Monitors activities and provides feedback on student performance. Maintains

Higher Education Program

instructional momentum with smooth and efficient transitions. Maximizes time-on-task in important learning activities. Demonstrates a positive attitude. Engages inattentive students. Models appropriate classroom behaviors. Criteria: The instructor uses effective communication techniques. Indicators: Establishes positive interactions with students that are focused upon learning. Communicates effectively with students of varying backgrounds and experiences. Challenges students in a positive and supportive manner. Promotes individual and group inquiry and discussion. Gives constructive feedback. Provides clear directions and explanations. Reinforces positive behavior. Praises when appropriate. Listens attentively and thoughtfully. Provides appropriate prompts and allots adequate time for student responses. Criteria: The instructor encourages critical thinking. Indicators: Chooses classroom activities and strategies that expand students' critical thinking skills. Poses problems and asks questions that require students to analyze, synthesize and apply information. Assists students in applying standards of proof and critically appraising evidence for propositions. Introduces current research and assists students to evaluate and critically appraise that research. Constructs problem-solving exercises that enable students to apply knowledge and skills. Assists students in the conduct of reasoned and systematic inquiry. Encourages inquiry, creative thinking, group problem solving, and innovative solutions. Criteria: The instructor uses appropriate technology in teaching and learning. Indicators: Selects and utilizes appropriate learning media, computer applications, and other technology to enhance classroom instruction. Uses computer applications to prepare and deliver instructional presentations. Encourages student use of email and Internet resources available through Florida State University. Uses appropriate technologies to create and maintain data bases for monitoring student performance and progress. Criteria: The instructor demonstrates knowledge of subject matter. Indicators: Communicates information accurately and appropriately. Enables students to interrelate knowledge and information from a variety of perspectives. Maintains currency 7Vith

regard to changes in subject field, as demonstrated through appropriate and timely syllabus revisions and updates. Uses a variety of reference materials. Effectively communicates course objectives, requirements, and evaluative standards. Links theory to the field of practice. Models required competencies.