scholarly journals Investigating approaches to diversity in a national survey of physics doctoral degree programs: The graduate admissions landscape

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoff Potvin ◽  
Deepa Chari ◽  
Theodore Hodapp
Keyword(s):  
National Survey ◽  
Doctoral Degree ◽  
Degree Programs ◽  
Graduate Admissions ◽  
Doctoral Degree Programs

scholarly journals Does Proficiency Level Affect Learners’ Lexical Access in L1 and L2?

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-67
Author(s):  
Muzakki Bashori
Keyword(s):  
Lexical Access ◽  
Doctoral Degree ◽  
Degree Programs ◽  
Language Performance ◽  
Proficiency Levels ◽  
Paired Samples ◽  
Proficiency Level ◽  
Doctoral Degree Programs ◽  
Insignificant Difference ◽  
L1 And L2

Proficiency level is one important factor that contributes to learners’ language performance. Learners with higher proficiency levels tend to perform lexical access better and faster than those with lower proficiency. This study aims to investigate whether proficiency level affects lexical access in L1 and L2. The research involved seven Indonesian university students of master’s and doctoral degree programs at a university in the Netherlands who possess different proficiency levels. Two scrambled texts in the participants’ L1 and L2 were employed to test the participants. Meanwhile, the paired-samples t-test and correlation analysis were used to report the experiment. The results revealed an insignificant difference and a negative correlation between proficiency level and the number of errors and reading time. However, on average, the more proficient learners outperformed the less proficient, thus indicating that they may possess more complex lexical access in L1 and L2. Further studies are needed to provide other useful insights on this topic.

WPI iCREATE: Graduate Training in Innovative Translation

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen L. Billiar ◽  
Glenn Gaudette ◽  
Frank Hoy ◽  
Terri Anne Camesano
Keyword(s):  
Educational System ◽  
Graduate Training ◽  
Doctoral Degree ◽  
Degree Programs ◽  
The Us ◽  
Doctoral Degree Programs

Traditional doctoral degree programs in engineering are generally good at teaching “Linear Thinking,” that is the ability to apply existing knowledge to achieve important, but predictable, outcomes (as defined by Stauffer (2005)). However, with few exceptions, the US engineering educational system falls short in enabling the vital attributes of innovation: adaptability, inventiveness, and the confidence to propose new paradigms.

How to Avoid Doctor of Nursing Practice Reality Shock 2.0: From Clinical Practice to the Classroom

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teresa Dodd-Butera ◽  
Marilyn Smith-Stoner
Keyword(s):  
Nursing Practice ◽  
Doctoral Degree ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
Advanced Practice Nursing ◽  
Public Institution ◽  
Degree Programs ◽  
Nursing Graduates ◽  
Doctor Of Nursing Practice ◽  
Reality Shock ◽  
Doctoral Degree Programs

“Reality shock 1.0,” which is experienced by new nursing graduates as they enter the nursing profession, has been an issue of concern for decades. Since the proliferation of multiple nursing doctoral degree programs, beginning in approximately 2004, when the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (2013) recommended that the doctor of nursing practice (DNP) replace the master’s degree as the minimum for advanced practice nursing, an era of reverse “reality shock 2.0” may be developing for graduates of DNP programs. Specifically, early evidence indicates that the acquisition of an academic position, and its attendant transition back to the academia, may be difficult. The purpose of this article is to deconstruct the typical process of being interviewed and accepted (appointed) as a tenure-track faculty member at a teaching-intensive 4-year public institution and to recommend strategies for obtaining the best salary, benefits, and other resources during the negotiation process.

scholarly journals Athletic Training and Physical Therapy Junior Faculty Member Preparation: Perceptions of Doctoral Programs and Clinical Practice

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Barrett ◽  
Stephanie Singe ◽  
Aynsley Diamond
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Physical Therapy ◽  
Athletic Training ◽  
Doctoral Degree ◽  
Junior Faculty ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Degree Programs ◽  
Hands On ◽  
Doctoral Degree Programs

Background: Institutions of higher education suffer from a shortage of appropriately prepared faculty members in athletic training and physical therapy programs. Both professional programs have recently undergone curricular reform and degree change. We sought gain an understanding of the preparation mechanisms experienced by athletic training and physical therapy practitioners for their junior faculty positions. Method: Twenty-six athletic trainers and physical therapists participated in this phenomenological study. Data from one-on-one phone interviews were analyzed following the inductive process of interpretive phenomenological analysis. Content experts, pilot interviews, multiple analysts and member checking ensured trustworthiness. Results: Findings indicate two primary mechanisms prepared the practitioners to become junior faculty members: doctoral degree programs and clinical practice. Doctoral degree programs did not provide experiences for all future faculty roles. Hands-on patient care practice provided participants the context for their teaching and confidence in knowledge aptitude. Conclusion: Doctoral institutions should provide a variety of hands on active learning experiences to doctoral students. Future faculty members can maximize the amount of time they provide clinical care to patients, following the attainment of their professional credential. Clinical competence and proficiency will serve as the foundational basis for their future teaching endeavors and may increase credibility and respect.

scholarly journals (Re)Introducing the Gerontology and Geriatrics Curricular Standards and Guidelines in Higher Education

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 557-557
Author(s):  
Tamar Shovali ◽  
Marilyn Gugliucci ◽  
Nina Silverstein
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Liberal Arts ◽  
Associate Degree ◽  
Doctoral Degree ◽  
Health Professions ◽  
Degree Programs ◽  
Unique Contribution ◽  
7Th Edition ◽  
Doctoral Degree Programs ◽  
Membership Organization

Abstract The Academy for Gerontology in Higher Education (AGHE), the education member group of GSA, is the only national institutional membership organization devoted primarily to gerontology and geriatrics education. Its mission provides for development and sponsorship of initiatives to advance the field of aging through its focus on education in gerontology/geriatrics. AGHE first published the Gerontology and Geriatrics Curricular Standards over three decades ago – a document that has been an integral resource for implementing/revising programs in liberal arts, the sciences, and more recently, health professions. To meet the needs in the field for increased breadth and depth of content, the new 7th edition of the educational guidelines fully embraces competency-based education for gerontology, as the health professions programs have for years. Our first presenter will provide an overview of the new edition. The second presenter will focus on associate degree programs in gerontology and their unique contribution to higher education. The third will present on undergraduate programs in gerontology explaining how these programs give students an edge in today’s job market. The fourth presenter will address graduate programs in gerontology, describing master’s degree programs and doctoral degree programs in gerontology and aging studies. The fifth presenter will discuss health professions programs including geriatrics curricula for osteopathic medical education, gerontology/geriatrics curricula for health-related programs and the doctor of pharmacy degree programs. Presentations will provide expert recommendations for program development through mapping AGHE’s Gerontology Competencies for Undergraduate and Graduate Education to programs in higher education. Nina Silverstein will serve as discussant.

A Snapshot of Doctoral Training in Epidemiology: Positioning Us for the Future

2020 ◽  
Vol 189 (10) ◽  
pp. 1154-1162
Author(s):  
WayWay M Hlaing ◽  
Renae D Schmidt ◽  
Soyeon Ahn ◽  
Jonathan M Samet ◽  
Ross C Brownson
Keyword(s):  
Core Competencies ◽  
Doctoral Program ◽  
Doctoral Degree ◽  
The United States ◽  
Doctoral Training ◽  
Degree Programs ◽  
Doctoral Level ◽  
Doctoral Degree Programs ◽  
Grant Proposals ◽  
Pertinent Information

Abstract Although epidemiology core competencies are established by the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health for masters-level trainees, no equivalent currently exists for the doctoral level. Thus, the objective of the Doctoral Education in Epidemiology Survey (2019) was to collect information on doctoral-level competencies in general epidemiology (doctoral) degree programs and other pertinent information from accredited programs in the United States and Canada. Participants (doctoral program directors or knowledgeable representatives of the program) from 57 institutions were invited to respond to a 39-item survey (18 core competencies; 9 noncore or emerging topic–related competencies; and 12 program-related items). Participants from 55 institutions (96.5%) responded to the survey, of whom over 85% rated 11 out of 18 core competencies as “very important” or “extremely important.” More than 80% of the programs currently emphasize 2 of 9 noncore competencies (i.e., competency to ( 1) develop and write grant proposals, and ( 2) assess evidence for causality on the basis of different causal inference concepts). “Big data” is the most frequently cited topic currently lacking in doctoral curricula. Information gleaned from previous efforts and this survey should prompt a dialog among relevant stakeholders to establish a cohesive set of core competencies for doctoral training in epidemiology.

Student Perceptions on the Utilization of Formative Feedback in the Online Environment

2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 59-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colleen Halupa ◽  
Doris U. Bolliger
Keyword(s):  
Student Perceptions ◽  
Doctoral Degree ◽  
Private University ◽  
Formative Feedback ◽  
Health Programs ◽  
Student Writing ◽  
Degree Programs ◽  
Online Questionnaire ◽  
Doctoral Degree Programs ◽  
Learner Perceptions

This article addresses instructors’ formative feedback to graduate student writing. The authors investigated the utilization of a formative feedback option in online master and doctoral degree programs in health education and administration. Two hundred and five graduate students at a small private university in the Midwest in various health programs completed an online questionnaire focusing on student perceptions of the use of formative feedback including preferences, utilization, usefulness, and barriers. The first part of the survey was completed by all respondents; the second part of the questionnaire was directed at formative feedback users only. Over seventy three percent of respondents utilized the feedback option and most individuals valued the feedback. Results highlighted differences of learner perceptions and preferences. Participants offered a number of barriers and reasons for non-use; however, students who did not utilize the option were either satisfied with their performance or were unable to meet deadlines set by instructors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document