HOWARD UNIVERSITY

The Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) Program: Examining Relationships and Regressions Among Professional Identity, Career Expectations, and Teaching Efficacy

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of HOWARD UNIVERSITY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Human Development and Psychoeducational Studies by

Temika Michael Simmons Washington, D.C. December 2009

UMI Number: 3396354

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3396354 Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

HOWARD UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL STUDIES DISSERTATION COMMITTEE ___________________________________ A. Wade Boykin, Ph.D. Committee Chairman ___________________________________ Salman Elbedour, Ph.D. ___________________________________ Constance M. Ellison, Ph.D. ___________________________________ Aaron B. Stills, Ph.D. ___________________________________ Anne S. Pruitt, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus The Ohio State University Columbus, OH ___________________________________ Jerry Gaff, Ph.D. Former Vice President Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) Washington, DC ___________________________________ Constance M. Ellison, Ph.D. Dissertation Advisor Candidate: Temika Michael Simmons Date of Defense: December 11, 2009

ii

DEDICATION To the great I Am: Holy! Holy! Holy! Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counselors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king. He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the son of God. Daniel 3:24, 25 (KJV). Save none but Jehovah whose boundless might is great enough to cover, yea, walk me through, the midst of any earthly fire. All praises for making my mustard seed enough.

To my loving parents, N.C. and Debrah Michael, Jr., This project, and only those things positive that may grow from it, is dedicated in its entirety to you. Thank you for everything you went without to make such things possible for us and for being your awesome selves. Your immeasurable sacrifices allowed us to dream as big and bad as we dared to imagine.

To my loving husband, Errick D. Simmons: thank you for being strong enough to take my punches, for being wise enough to understand they were never for you, and for carrying enough faith for the both of us. You never gave up on me. I love you, forever, always. Little Errick, youre a great sport!

To my siblings: Shunda, Ced, Robert, and Tarsha: your undying support has helped me through the lowest times. Thank you for never imagining this endeavor as a task impossible or overdue. You believed in me when I became too distracted to believe in myself. To Grandma Lillie Pearl: thank you for laying the foundation for all of us! To: the Adams, Baileys, Draines,

iii

Fords, Michaels, Millers, Nashes, Netters, Stanfords, Bransons, Johnsons, and a partridge and a pear tree, who can measure the blessings of such a family! I owe you me. Uncle Cat: thanks for letting me crash. Your patience wasn't unnoticed. Tony, Avery, CJ, Tyler, Diamond, Derial, and Daria: use your hardback copy of auntie's dissertation to throw at anyone calling your dreams impossible. YOU can do ANYTHING! To the Bailey family: your prayers busted this thing open for me! I do not deserve you. To my girls, Nico, Amy, Valanda, Marnel, Kellie, Tenille, Kaeita: your friendship and support are priceless. You make me cool. To the Simmons and Bruces: thanks for making me feel at home. Peng: thanks for listening. New Heights: thanks for praying and smiling me through. Pastor Fred and Denise Batten: Ive never known a Mississippi ministry that wraps clear around the DC Beltway! Thanks for your support. Ma, IT'S OVER!

In Memory of Loving Grandparents: George Terry Beadie Adams (1929-1983) N.C. Michael, Sr. (1916-1990) Dollie Mae Michael (1922-2000)

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Extension of my sincerest appreciation and gratitude are owed to Dr. Constance M. Ellison, my research advisor, for immeasurable guidance and support throughout this project. Thank you for teaching through countless revisions, for challenging me toward more rigorous research, for your patience as this project developed, and for listening along the way. Dr. A. Wade Boykin, my committee chairman: thank you for your inspiration as a teacher and scholar. This project started as a simple idea inspired from one of your classes and I am grateful for the wisdom and expertise you have provided to help bring this project to fruition. Dr. Aaron B. Stills, my committee member and department chair: your unique input helped to provide depth, clarity and a distinct perspective that I knew could only come from you. Your attention to the finer details and your listening ear were invaluable. To Dr. Salman Elbedour, my committee member from heaven: you were the glue that held things together in the end for me. Thank you for being a great professor, for supporting my work, and for being flexible. Dr. Orlando L. Taylor, so much of this writing opportunity is owed to you. Your mentorship and guidance are priceless and studying with you has produced some of my most memorable doctoral experiences. To Dr. Anne Pruitt (external examiner), and and Dr. Jerry Gaff (consultant), co-directors of the former, national Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) program, thank you for your service on my committee and for the gift of PFF. Drs. Terrolyn P. Carter, Kimberly Moffitt, Gerunda Hughes, Jean-Claude Assad, and Melvin Davis: thank you for being a sounding board and a breath of fresh air. Dr. Dorris Gardner, thanks for taking me under your wing. Special thanks to Hope College for the opportunity to teach, learn and continue my faculty training and research. Dr. Carl Washington, thank you for helping to tie together vital loose ends. Thank you to Simmons and Simmons, PLLC for providing the sponsorship needed to facilitate participant interviews.

Awesome thanks to the graduate student participants and Preparing Future Faculty program directors who so graciously agreed to be part of this project. This type of research could not move forward without individuals like you.

vi

ABSTRACT
Boyers (1990) seminal and influential discussion, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, challenged the existing views of faculty roles and responsibilities and generated considerable discussion regarding the way colleges and universities evaluate and train faculty (Golde, et al, 2008). In response, institutions of higher learning began to think critically regarding their responsibilities in preparing graduate students for the full range of faculty roles and responsibilities. This provided a gateway for the development of the national Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) program. Given this paradigmatic shift in conventional views on professional development training for doctoral students, the purpose of this study was to use the national Preparing Future Faculty program as a model to: (1) develop a valid instrument that reliably measured Professional Identity Development (PID) among Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) fellows; (2) determine if there was a relationship between PID and Teaching Efficacy (TE), between PID and Students Career Expectations (SCE); and, (3) examine whether PID was a significant predictor of SCE and TE. Additionally, this study sought to generate a reliable measure that may be used by PFF administrators to assess the degree to which program participants had taken on a professional identity. A purposive sample of 11 institutions was selected to participate in the study. The 238 participants included current PFF program directors and PFF graduate students. The research followed a sequential

exploratory design wherein qualitative, then quantitative, data were collected and analyzed and the results integrated to yield the outcome of the investigation. A Pearson r found significant, positive relationships between professional identity development and career expectations (r = .522, p < .001); and professional identity and teaching efficacy (r - .594, p < .001). A linear regression analysis determined that professional identity development was a significant predictor variable of career expectations [F (1, 214) = 79.762, p < .001] and teaching efficacy [F (1, 212) = 114.760, p < .001]. A Cronbachs alpha coefficient measured the internal consistency

vii

reliability of the 30-item Preparing Future Faculty Professional Identify Development SurveyPilot (PFF-PIDS Pilot). The total scale reliability of the 30-item instrument was a robust .98 and .96 for each subscale. Implications for current and developing PFF programs are discussed along with implications for educational psychologists.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS COMMITTEE APPROVAL FORM .............................................................................. ii DEDICATION.................................................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. v ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... xi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................ xii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1 Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................ 2 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................... 3 Research Questions and Hypotheses ...................................................................... 4 Significance of Study .............................................................................................. 5 Definition of Terms................................................................................................. 7 CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE .............................................................. 10 Historical Overview/Background of Preparing Future Faculty ............................ 13 Using Identity Dissonance to Understand Professsional Identity Development .. 15 Expectancy Theory and Met Expectations Hypotheses ........................................ 17 Teachers Sense of Efficacy.................................................................................. 19 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 23 Institutions and Participants .................................................................................. 23 Sampling..................... .......................................................................................... 25 Instrument Development ....................................................................................... 26 Internal Consistency Reliability Rating of PFF-PIDS Pilot Study ........... 29 Procedures................ ............................................................................................. 30 Deletion of Research Questions Six, Seven, and Eight ............................ 32 Data Collection......... ............................................................................................ 33 Data Analysis........ ................................................................................................ 33 CHAPTER 4. RESULTS ............................................................................................... 34 Demographic Information ..................................................................................... 34 Interview Participants ............................................................................... 34 Emergent Themes ..................................................................................... 35

ix

Dual Identities ............................................................................... 35 Subjectivity ................................................................................... 38 Dying Breed .................................................................................. 38 Context and Environment ............................................................. 40 Survey Respondents .............................................................................................. 40 Response Rate ........................................................................................... 40 Description of the Sample......................................................................... 41 Participant Experiences ............................................................................. 42 Reliability of Instrumentation ............................................................................... 44 Descriptive Analysis of PFF-PIDS ........................................................... 44 Research Question One ......................................................................................... 46 Null Hypothesis One ................................................................................. 47 Research Question Two............ ............................................................................ 47 Null Hypothesis Two ................................................................................ 47 Research Question Three ...................................................................................... 49 Research Question Four ........................................................................................ 51 Null Hypothesis Four ................................................................................ 51 Research Question Five ........................................................................................ 52 Validation of Instrumentation ............................................................................... 54 Null Hypothesis Five ................................................................................ 53 CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................ 55 Implications and Future Research ......................................................................... 55 Implications for Educational Psychologists and PFF Program Directors.......... ... 56 Limitations.......... .................................................................................................. 57 Delimitations.......................................... ............................................................... 58 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 59 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 62 APPENDIX A: Letter of Introduction and Invitation to Universities to Particiate in the study ........................................................................................... 62 APPENDIX B: Follow up Email Participant Packet ............................................ 63 APPENDIX C: Email Invitation to PFF Students ................................................ 64 APPENDIX D: Preparing Future Faculty - Professional Identity Development Survey (PFF-PIDS) ................................................................................ 65 APPENDIX E: Interview Protocol for Program Directors' Semistructured Interview .................................................................................................... 70 APPENDIX F: Participant Consent Form ............................................................ 73 APPENDIX G: Preamble for Investigative Procedures........................................ 75 APPENDIX H: Reliability Analysis for PFF-PIDS Pilot Data ............................ 76

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. PAGE

Gender of Respondents ......................................................................................... 40 Year in Academic Program ................................................................................... 41 Year in Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) program ................................................. 42 Ethnicity of Survey Respondents .......................................................................... 42 Age of Survey Respondents .................................................................................. 43 Preferred Career Choice of Survey Respondents.................................................. 43 Reasons for Participation in PFF program ............................................................ 43 PFF Fellows Teaching Experience at Grades K-12, UG, and GR level .............. 45 PFF Fellows Interest in Faculty Jobes before Involvement in PFF..................... 46 PFF Fellows Interest in Faculty Jobs after Involvement in PFF ........................ 46 Descriptive Statistics of PFF-PIDS Subscales ...................................................... 46 Bivarate Correlation Matrix of PID and CE ......................................................... 48 Bivarate Correlation Matrix of PID and TE ......................................................... 48 Item Analysis for the 30-item PFF-PIDS Pilot ..................................................... 50 Linear Regression Analysis for the Prediction of CE for PFF Fellows ................ 51 Linear Regression Analysis for the Prediction of TE for PFF Fellows ................ 53

xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS PFF: PFF-PIDS: PFF-PIDS Pilot: HBCUs: TWIs: PID: TE: SCE or CE: Preparing Future Faculty program Preparing Future Faculty - Professional Identity Development Survey Preparing Future Faculty - Professional Identity Development Survey Pilot Study Historically Black Colleges and Universities Traditionally White Institutions Professional Identity Development Teaching Efficacy Students Career Expectations or Career Expectations (used synonymously)

xii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION The close of the twentieth century marked a pivotal shift in institutional expectations of new faculty in American schools of higher education. Traditionalist views of faculty as

disciplinary stewards had given way to expectations that faculty have training and leadership abilities across a variety of demanding and complex tasks. Consequently, professional standards for todays faculty extend beyond disciplinary expertise to proficiency in classroom teaching, the creation of service programs, and the delivery of funded research projects i.e., the full range of faculty roles and responsibilities: teaching, research and service (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, and Weibl, 2000). Consumers of PhDs desire new faculty with an ability to work collaboratively across disciplines, provide leadership in disciplinary professional societies, educate diverse student bodies, and, utilize new technologies in teaching and learning (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, and Weibl, 2000). This shift in institutional expectations of faculty was heightened by Boyers (1990) Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate whose push for professional development programs for future faculty became a point of popular discussion and reassessment regarding the way colleges and universities evaluate and train faculty (Golde, et al, 2008). In 1992, The Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) program provided a practical approach to these discussions and, between 1993-2003, became the first effort of its kind to bring together the producers and consumers of the American Ph.D. to address the changing needs of the academy. With support from The Pew Charitable Trusts, the National Science Foundation and The Atlantic Philanthropies, The Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) together with the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) established PFF programs at various colleges and universities across the nation. These institutions were successful in working collaboratively

to create specialized training curricula and activities to prepare doctoral students specifically for academic careers (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, and Weibl, 2000).

Statement of the Problem Nearly 20 years after its start, interests in Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) and PFF type programs in American institutions continue to grow; and, with many programs having now become institutionalized on various campuses, it is a program of unusual strength, currently extending nearly 10 years beyond initial grant funding. As a result, Preparing Future Faculty programs have provided the foundation of practice upon which a growing body of scholarly literature on faculty development efforts rests. These studies, although extensive in qualitative examination of professional socialization processes and student/faculty perceptions of programmatic effectiveness, are limited in their design of quantitative examinations of students' professional identity and how such an identity may be impacted by programs like PFF. Consequently, there remains a dearth of information in scholarly literature concerning quantitative evaluations of PFFs impact on the degree to which program participants have become salient in their professional identity. The development of a professional identity is critical for doctoral students (Colbeck, 2008) and as such, must become an important part of the discussion regarding faculty development training. Given the longevity of PFF programs, their success in changing the face of doctoral education in America, and the extensive body of research documenting their effectiveness, it is critical now to begin to turn the discussion toward gaining a better understanding of how current program activities impact professional identity development. Such discussions can lead to greater efforts to assess the cognitive processes that are influenced and impacted by PFF curricula and consequently provide the means of

strengthening such programs to allow students to more deeply internalize the professional norms, values, ethics, and authority that yield competencies in the "full range" of faculty roles and responsibilities.

Purpose of the Study The past 20 years of higher education in the United States has marked a noted shift in the way preparations for faculty careers are perceived. Boyers (1990) seminal and influential discussion, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, challenged the existing views of faculty roles and responsibilities generating considerable discussion about the way colleges and universities evaluate and train faculty (Golde, et al, 2008). Boyer sounded the alarm for graduate training in, not only research, but teaching and service the full range of faculty roles and responsibilities. In response, institutions of higher learning began to think critically regarding their responsibilities in the preparation of graduate students for faculty careers. Given this paradigmatic shift in conventional views on professional development

training for doctoral students, the purpose of this study is: 1. to develop a valid instrument that reliably measures Professional Identity Development (PID) among Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) fellows; 2. to determine if there is a relationship between PID and Teaching Efficacy (TE) and also between PID and Students Career Expectations (SCE); and, 3. to examine whether PID is a significant predictor of SCE and TE. Additionally, this study seeks to generate a measure that may be used by PFF administrators to assess the degree to which program participants have taken on a professional identity. A study such as this will lead to a new way of looking at how professional identity development can be

researched and assessed. Due to the scarcity of literature on professional identity development as it relates to programs like PFF, it is important to develop a framework to address the programs immersion of doctoral students into the culture of higher education and the full range of expected faculty roles and responsibilities.

Research Questions and Hypotheses Questions Q1 = Is there a relationship between professional identity development and career expectations among Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) fellows? Q2 = Is there a relationship between professional identity development and teaching efficacy among PFF fellows? Q3 = Is the PFF Professional Identity Development Scale a reliable measure of professional identity development among PFF fellows? Q4 = Is professional identity development a significant predictor of career expectations among PFF fellows? Q5 = Is professional identity development a significant predictor of teaching efficacy among PFF fellows? Q6 = Are students who are more involved in PFF professional development activities more salient in their professional identity than those who are less involved? Q7 = Do students who are more involved in PFF professional development activities have more realistic career expectations than those who are less involved? Q8 = Do students who are more involved in PFF professional development activities have higher levels of teaching efficacy than those who are less involved?

Hypotheses H1 = There is a positive relationship between professional identity development and career expectations among PFF fellows. H2 = There is a positive relationship between professional identity development and teaching efficacy among PFF fellows. H3 = The PFF Professional Identity Development Scale, which includes teaching efficacy and career expectations, is a reliable measure of professional identity development among PFF fellows. H4 = Professional identity development is a significant predictor of career expectations among PFF fellows. H5 = Professional identity development is a significant predictor of teaching efficacy among PFF fellows. H6 = Students who are more involved in PFF professional development activities are more salient in their professional identity than those who are less involved. H7 = Students who are more involved in PFF professional development activities have more realistic career expectations than those who are less involved. H8 = Students who are more involved in PFF professional development activities have higher levels of teaching efficacy than those who are less involved.

Significance of the Study While the exploration of professional identity development in the context of Preparing Future Faculty programs is not novel, conversations regarding critical structural components of professional identity have centered primarily on the socialization of graduate students for

academic careers. Although this conversation is critical for framing a better understanding of the professional development processes common in the socialization experiences of PFF students, they fail to adequately highlight the internal, cognitive shifts that may occur as students seek to establish a sense of commitment to a lifes work in academe. They fail to question the process or transition of feeling like a student to feeling like a professor. The socialization experiences of PFF students are well documented in PFF literature (Austin, & Wulff, 2004; DeNeef, 2002; Tice, 1999). However, the cognitive transition that presumably accompanies these socialization

experiences escape significant dialogue and exploration. For example, what type of commitment to the academy are we expecting of PFF students upon completion of the graduate degree? Do we expect life long commitments to the cause of higher education? Do we expect a new generation of faculty committed to the cause of PFF type training for their own students? Do we anticipate a cohort of faculty of color that is more strongly represented? Are we looking for students who have developed early career survival skills? And, if we look for any, all, or variations of these outcomes, how are these successes measured? Generally speaking, the

literature on Preparing Future Faculty programs is heavily colored in qualitative research studies that rely on self-reported data (i.e., detailed interviews, focus groups, descriptive surveys) which offer invaluable feedback on the experiences, expectations, and satisfaction of graduate students with PFF programs. These self-reports, however, do not provide the unique quantitative

perspective that allows for a broader, more objective view of the adaptive and cognitive changes that take place in relation to shifts in ones personal identity when accommodating a developing professional identity. This study seeks to initiate a conversation that emphasize a critical need to address the development of a long-term, salient professional identity that motivates, sustains, directs, and proves visionary for Preparing Future Faculty fellows. By focusing on the

development of realistic career expectations and a strong sense of teaching efficacy among PFF fellows, this project seeks to enhance the defined view of professional identity development for participants of such a program and to highlight the way PFF fellows, as a result of participating in the program, reframe their sense of self.

Definition of Terms 1. Professional Identity Development the process whereby individuals become comfortable in career related roles and responsibilities, adopting the norms, values, and attitudes of the profession; the process of how one begins to perceive self within the context of professional environment, peers, and community (Costello, 2005). 2. Professional Identity Development - Professional Identity Development is the acceptance of social role expectations as part of who one is and the cognitive framework whereby new experiences are interpreted (Colbeck, 2008). It is the internalization of professional norms and ethics that allow professionals to regulate themselves effectively, autonomously, and with the authority, confidence, and professional demeanor that convinces others of their competence (Costello, 2005). 3. Teaching Efficacy a teachers sense of efficacy is a judgment about ones ability to influence student engagement and learning regardless of the difficulty or motivation level of the student(s) (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2001). 4. Students Career Expectations the expectations that are formed due to information and experiences that enable job applicants and new employees to formulate more realistic expectations of their work result[ing] in greater job satisfaction, better performance, and in general, improved job survival (Olsen and Crawford, 1998).

5. Identity Consonance a non-traumatic phenomenon that occurs when the acquisition of a new identity blends smoothly with existing personal identities (Costello, 2005). 6. Identity Dissonance a traumatic phenomenon that occurs when the acquisition of a new identity clashes with existing personal identities (Costello, 2005). 7. Positive Identity Dissonance the empowerment one feels as a result of identity dissonance; occurs when the fledgling professional identity is more socially valued than the personal identity it is displacing (Costello, 2005, p. 28). 8. Negative Identity Dissonance the clash of ones nascent professional identities against their valued personal identities [without] benefit or resolve (Costello, 2005, p. 28). 9. Mentoring a collegial mentor-mentee relationship between a PFF fellow and a faculty member at a different institution that provides guidance in teaching, research, service, and professional development. (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan and Wiebl, 2000). 10. Professional Development training made available at the departmental, university, or partnership level that covers a wide range of faculty career tasks. 11. Cross-campus Relationships a professional relationship that a PFF fellow has with an individual or individuals at a partnering institution that allows them to participate in various activities designed to orientate them to faculty life at that institution. 12. Habitus an individuals conscious and unconscious worldviews, tastes, embodied and emotional identities with the larger unconscious element lying just below conscious perception (Costello, 2005). 13. Professional Socialization the social learning process that includes the acquisition of specific knowledge and skills that are required in a professional role and address the

development of new values, attitudes, and self-identity components (McGowen and Hart, 1990). 14. The Academy The body of American colleges and universities. 15. Pre-Faculty Training training designed to facilitate the professional development of doctoral students aspiring toward faculty careers in American colleges and universities. 16. Preparing Future Faculty or PFF program a term used to collectively refer to those faculty development programs that were major grant recipients in the first two phases of the national Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) project that was supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts (and later by The National Science Foundation and private gifts) and began as a joint undertaking of the Association of American Colleges and Universities and the Council of Graduate Schools from 1993-2002 (Gaff and Pruitt, 2001). 17. Preparing Future Faculty Fellows or PFF Fellows or Fellows doctoral students currently participating in a Preparing Future Faculty program.

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Within the growing body of faculty preparation research, there remains an increased need for studies that examine professional identity development. Professional identity development is critical for doctoral students (Colbeck, 2008) because it is the process whereby individuals become comfortable in career related roles and responsibilities, adopting the norms, values, and attitudes of the profession (Costello, 2005). A critical component to the development of a professional identity is gaining a clear understanding of the professional demands of the career toward which one aspires. Realistic expectations of what will be expected in the job market can move students toward a cogent, or more salient, position in their professional identity. Additionally, teaching efficacy is a second vital construct that impacts professional identity development. Teaching is a significant responsibility for faculty. As an underestimated craft, it is often overlooked in the traditional model of doctoral training as an area in need of professional development. Consequently, doctoral students are forced to develop pedagogy in teaching and learning on the job a compromising practice that PFF programs seek to remedy. As one of the few teacher characteristics that directly impact student learning (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2001), teaching efficacy becomes a significant piece of the professional identity puzzle because faculty not only have to develop identities as scholars, but as teachers as well. Thus, by seeking possible relationships between professional identity development and students career expectations, and professional identity development and teaching efficacy, this study aims to deepen the discussion and analysis of professional identity for PFF fellows. Preparing Future Faculty programs are designed to socialize students for various roles and responsibilities pertaining to the academy (i.e., grant writing, the tenure process, developing teaching pedagogy and mentoring students). These efforts are evident in the diverse activities

10

designed for student participation. Although numerous reports (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, and Weibl, 2000; DeNeef, 2002; Adams, 2002) cite student, faculty, and university satisfaction with the program, there currently is no systematic, quantitative measure of the programs impact on professional identity for students aside from qualitative self-reports. The problem with selfreport measures is that they often do not give realistic views of actual changes in a persons behavior or belief system. When examining research studies that have analyzed the effects of programs that attempt to change or train people, the common outcome is for individuals to say they have grown from the experience while behavior analyses reveal no significant changes in behavior (Myers, 1980). Because PFF programs are largely made up of individuals, schools, departments, and faculty who are willing participants in the programs, there is a need to closely examine changes in actual behavior and psychological processes in order to gain realistic insight into the programs effects. Currently, what is missing in the research literature on PFF programs is a systematic analysis of the psychological impacts of the program. By considering extensions of Expectancy Theory (i.e., Met Expectations Hypothesis and Realistic Job Review) and teaching efficacy in the context of professional identity development we can look closely at the ways students formulate personal views of what a faculty job is and how PFF activities affect this process. The research literature on Realistic Job Review (Premack and Wanous, 1985) and Met Expectations Hypotheses (Porter and Steers, 1973) assert that information and experiences that allow individuals to formulate more realistic expectations of their work result in greater job satisfaction, better performance, and in general, improved job survival (Olsen and Crawford, p. 39, 1998). It is critical for PFF programs to remain aware of student readiness for faculty jobs by understanding the degree to which PFF activities impact student job expectations. While there

11

appears to be an obvious need to critically assess current programmatic impacts on student expectations, it is also vitally important to consider the ways PFF activities shape the professional identity of its fellows. Existing studies on Preparing Future Faculty programs typically address issues of socialization and student perceptions of programmatic effectiveness rather than issues of identity i.e. understanding who becomes a professor and why. Austin and McDaniels (2006) observed that a key task for graduate students is to develop an identity as a scholar and a member of a discipline. However, the process of adapting a professional identity is not a simple one. Blending new professional identities into personal identities may be an easy process for people whose personal identities are consonant with their new professional role. This process, however, proves traumatic for those whose personal and professional identities are dissonant (Costello, 2005). This disequilibrium is exacerbated by the conflict of employer and employee expectations of job performance. Expectations for faculty at non-doctoral granting institutions, the consumers of PhDs (i.e., teaching colleges, liberal arts colleges, community colleges, etc.) often vary from those of doctoral granting institutions, the producers of PhDs (i.e., research institutions). Richlin (1991) highlighted this disconnect between the preparatory prerogatives of Ph.D. granting schools and those qualities deemed critical for Ph.D. hiring agents. She found that research institutions do a great job of training PhDs to work in research institutions while these institutions themselves consume only 20% of their trainees. Consequently, as the bulk of newly minted PhDs go on to teach in non-research institutions, these institutions continually note their dissatisfaction with their training and professional focus. By incorporating Costellos (2005) theory of identity dissonance into an understanding of how well PFF students are able to blend their new professional identity into

12

existing personal identities, we can better hypothesize about student levels of preparedness for faculty careers and the degree to which PFF activities influence them. Partnerships created by PFF between doctoral and non-doctoral granting institutions allowed program directors and administrators to work collaboratively and diligently in preparing students for faculty roles and responsibilities (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, and Weibl, 2000). Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that PFF programs seek to align student training with current and realistic faculty job expectations. With increasing attention being given to the redirection of focus and purpose of American doctoral education (Golde and Walker, 2006) the work of PFF holds added significance. It is a unique movement in the training and professional development of future faculty. Therefore, it is critical to move toward a deepened discussion of the psychological imprint of PFF activities on student expectations and professional identity.

Historical Overview/Background of Preparing Future Faculty The Preparing Future Faculty program that began as a national program in 1993 now involves nearly 45 doctoral granting institutions and approximately 300 partner institutions (www.preparing-faculty.org, 2008). These schools work cooperatively to address the changing roles and responsibilities of junior faculty at a variety of institutions. A collaboration of the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) and the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS), the program challenged the traditional format of doctoral training by emphasizing the importance of training in what program organizers termed the full range of faculty roles and responsibilities teaching, research, and service (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, and Weibl, 2000). With help from The Pew Charitable Trusts, the National Science Foundation, and The Atlantic Philanthropies, the program developed in four phases over the course of ten years.

13

The initial Phase I (1993-1997) was designed to provide a platform across institutions for collaborative discussion and development of alternative models of faculty preparation. In Phase II (1997-2001) the models were implemented at participating research and cluster schools. In Phase III (1998-2001) model programs were developed in science and mathematics and later, in Phase IV (1999-2002), in the social sciences and humanities (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, and Weibl, 2000). During each of the four phases, partnerships were established between doctoral and nondoctoral granting institutions. This collaborative partnership among various types of institutions is referred to as a cluster in PFF literature (i.e., Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, and Weibl, 2000). These clusters include: a research university acting as the lead university and any combination of teaching colleges, liberal arts colleges, community colleges, technical colleges, minority serving colleges, religious colleges, etc. Typically, cluster partnerships are created between schools within or near the metropolitan area of the lead institution. Some schools, however, have formed partnerships across the country. Clusters are governed by a steering committee composed of faculty or administrators representing each of the institutions and sharing an equal voice in the collaborative construction of PFF. The major characteristics of PFF programs are that they provide a well structured mentoring program, opportunities for students to cultivate relationships and experiences at other institutions, and professional development training in the form of workshops and seminars covering a wide range of topics (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, and Weibl, 2000). Professional development workshops/seminars include topics such as: preparing the curriculum vitae, grant writing, negotiating a job contract, understanding and utilizing teaching pedagogies, using technology in the classroom, becoming involved in disciplinary societies and working with diverse student groups. Numerous evaluative assessments have been completed on PFF

programs (Austin and McDaniels, 2006; Austin and Wulff, 2004; Gaff, J., Pruitt-Logan, A., and

14

Weibl, R., 2000; Tice, 1999; Richlin, 1991; Newton, 2004; McCoy, 2006). However, most of these studies focus on the socialization of students rather than professional identity, students career expectations or teaching efficacy. Grant funding for the national PFF initiative was parented by the Council of Graduate Schools and Association of American Colleges and Universities and ran from 1993-2002. Between 1993 and 2002, most PFF programs were successfully institutionalized at partner institutions. Consequently, a large number of these programs continue to exist on college campuses across the United States and are now primarily funded by the institutions themselves (often the graduate school or participating departments).

Using Identity Dissonance to Understand Professional Identity Development It is widely noted and accepted that scholars of various professions are expected to develop the characteristic traits and professional habits of their discipline. Professional habits and traits are important because they allow individuals to fit in and succeed as a professional. The development of a professional identity that is aligned with professionally established habits and/or traits allows new entrants to better assimilate into a new profession and gives credibility to their new practice. There are various identities that individuals assume over time, and the degree to which new identities are more easily assimilated into existing identities determine the degree of comfort (consonance) or discomfort (dissonance) individuals may experience in their new role (Costello, 2005). Other foundational theories of identity (i.e., Cross, 1991) use the term development to refer to the significance or importance of an identity role in a persons life. According to Bourdieu (1990), identity development is directly affected by the conscious and unconscious functions of the human mind, with primary influences from the latter. The

subconscious component, habitus, lies beyond cognitive perception, deep within the folds of

15

the human mind and regulates an individuals morals, values, preferences and beliefs by impacting cognitive perception, appreciation, and understanding (Costello, 2005). Costello

(2005) asserts that it is preexisting personal identities lying deep within the habitus that influence the students ability to assimilate a new professional identity role into their existing personal identity or cognitive ideology. She uses the terms identity dissonance and identity

consonance to describe the experience of acquiring a new identity and how it feels when the new identity blends smoothly with other personal identities verses how it feels when they clash (Costello, p. 25-26, 2005). Identity dissonance, also referred to as cognitive dissonance in some psychological circles (i.e., Aronson, 1997), is the general sense of worry, anxiety, disequilibrium, and uncertainty that a person feels when confronted with a new identity or way of thinking about oneself. Cross (1991) describes this process as immersion/emersion, the struggle between two identities for a dominant place in the psyche. Cross proposed identity stage of

immersion/emersion provides a foundation for understanding the psychological reconciliation of previously competing personal identities. His theory, however, deals specifically with racial identity development and does not provide a context for professional identity development. Costellos notion of identity dissonance, on the other hand, explores the impact of professional development programs on the professional identities of students. Consequently, Cross provides a window for understanding identity dissonance while Costello connects the experience to professional and graduate training. Considerations of both theories inform discussions of

identity dissonance in the context of finding a comfortable place within a profession. When students are seeking to find a place in the professional spectrum during their career training, dissonance may be manifested in questions such as, who am I? Is this the right career for me? Why cant I fit in? What are my priorities? In what direction am I going? Why do I feel fake?

16

Students engage various coping mechanisms when dealing with dissonance. These strategies may include student attempts to alter their personal identity or personality in order to fully assume the new professional identity positive dissonance. Or, students may reject the roles of the new professional identity and maintain a dominant personal identity by removing him/herself from their program of study or by simply affirming that some behaviors/characteristics/practices of the profession he/she will simply not adopt negative dissonance. Whatever direction is ultimately decided by the student possibly impacted by subconscious rather than conscious influences. Therefore, an assessment of the effectiveness of PFF activities in preparing students for academic careers must involve an examination which seeks to uncover the subconscious cognitive influences of its participants. And, although Newton (2004) initiated a discussion of identity construction in PFF programs using discourse analysis and postmodern theories, this approach failed to consider the psychological consequences of dissonance and consonance in identity development concepts that allow us to gauge the degree of student comfort in faculty roles.

Expectancy Theory and Met Expectations Hypothesis While Costellos identity dissonance allows us to analyze the psychological impact of PFF activities by examining subconscious developments of professional identity, the Met Expectations Hypothesis allows us to examine the psychological impact of PFF activities on the conscious mind. In addition to assessing the subconscious or unknown self through identity dissonance it is also important to evaluate the conscious or apparent psychological processes of student preparation. The Met Expectations Hypothesis provides an adequate framework in which this may be done. Met Expectations Hypothesis is an outgrowth of Vrooms Expectancy

17

Theory (1995) which focuses on the idea that behavioral responses are directly related to individual expectations about future events. This position is derived from a branch of motivation theory that deals with the assumption that people, in order to gratify self, tend to behave in ways that maximize certain types of outcomes and minimize others (Banks, 2005). Porter and Steers (1973) concept of Met Expectations is described as the difference between the negative and positive experiences a person encounters on the job and what he/she expected to encounter i.e., the degree to which actual career work reflects perceived career roles. Porter and Steers (1973) found that when an individuals expectations of future job events are not substantially met, his propensity to withdraw will increase. In other words, individuals faced with a work load that he/she did not expect to have to perform on the job experience loss of motivation and job retention is compromised. Consequently, research examining realistic job expectations suggests that information and experiences that allow individuals to formulate more realistic expectations of their work results in increased job performance, satisfaction, and job survival (Olsen and Crawford, 1998). Concerned with the potential role that met expectations may have on

withdrawal behavior of an individual, Porter and Steers characterized work motivation as what energizes, directs, and sustains human behavior (Banks, 2005). Using the work of Porter and Steers as a guide one can conclude that if PFF activities do not properly provide students with realistic job expectations they may be subjected to early career burnout, decreased motivation and productivity, even recidivism. Students must understand what success looks like at different types of institutions and be able to embody this early in their careers. This is why it is paramount for PFF programs to continually revise and revisit programmatic activities to strengthen student preparation and career resilience. A study such as this would be useful in this case because it

18

provides a framework for programs to begin assessing the degree to which their activities impact student career expectations.

Teachers Sense of Efficacy Traditionally, few practical experiences and training in preparation for academic careers are afforded graduate students in pursuit of master or doctoral level degrees. More often, students are trained to primarily develop disciplinary expertise and scholarly research while proficiencies in teaching and service are practically ignored. Until most recently, developing the capacity for teaching and learning about fundamental professional concepts and principles remain accidental occurrences (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, and Weibl, 2000, p.x). Teaching And,

proficiency in todays academy is critical for professors who aspire toward tenure.

increasingly, new faculty must not only demonstrate but also provide documentation of teaching excellence. Presently, as the discussion of long-term educational and professional implications regarding PFF continues to grow, it is critical to develop a body of research which expands existing discussions of professional identity development and how salient identities relate to teaching efficacy. Why teaching efficacy? Teacher self-efficacy significantly impacts teaching and learning because it is one of the few teacher characteristics that directly impacts student learning (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2001). Therefore, the building of teaching efficacy is paramount in the training of future faculty members. Why paramount? Paramount in the sense that future faculty becomes the body of faculty responsible for training and preparing the next generation of scientists, leaders and scholars. As a consequence, strong faculty builds strong students. According to Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, teacher efficacy, is a teachers judgment of his or her capabilities to bring about desired outcomes of student engagement and learning, even

19

among those students who may be difficult or unmotivated, (2001, p. 783). Tschannen-Moran and Hoy assert that teacher efficacy has been related to student achievement, motivation, and classroom behavior, as well as, teachers investment in instruction, goal setting, and level of aspiration (2001). Further, students will persist when things do not go smoothly and are more resilient in the face of setbacks. And they tend to be less critical of students who make errors and to work longer with a student who is struggling (Woolfolk Hoy, 2004). Since the publication of Albert Banduras (1977) influential article Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change, countless researchers in the social sciences have made use of the concept of self-efficacy to predict and explain a wide range of human functioning. The concept of self-efficacy has been so influential that over the past thirty years, researchers have extended the use of self-efficacy beyond educational psychology to a wide range of fields including: medicine, business, international affairs and political science in order to better understand academic motivation and achievement among students (Artino, 2006). Bandura (1977, 1997) theorized four sources of efficacy expectations: social persuasion, physiological and emotional states, vicarious experiences, and mastery experiences. The most powerful source of efficacy expectations, mastery experiences, is highly applicable to teaching as teaching proficiency is built, at least in part, on past successes. As past teaching experiences are

perceived as successful, teachers expectations about future proficiencies are raised as long as the level of work required is viewed as sustainable. Perceptions of past failures, on the other hand, lower efficacy beliefs about future successes unless those failures provide insight into more potentially successful strategies. Additional influences on mastery experiences include teachers interpretations of their feelings or emotions toward teaching; vicarious experiences gained by observing other teachers modeling a skill, social or verbal persuasion such as feedback from a

20

supervisor, colleague or students.

According to Bandura (1986), the strength of efficacy

developed is dependent on the closeness of the teacher to those observed, the perceived expertise of the observed, and the trustworthiness and credibility of the persuader. Consequently, teaching efficacy is shaped and developed out of successful or failed mastery experiences. Understanding the major influences on mastery experiences enables one to draw reasonable conclusions regarding the impact of practical training and mentorship in teaching for PFF students. The instructional framework of PFF programs often involves the development of a teaching portfolio, assigned mentorship in teaching and other professional activities, opportunities for solo teaching experience(s), evaluated teaching experience(s), and workshop training in teaching and learning. Such experiences lend themselves to the enhancement of efficacious teaching as students gain opportunities for strong faculty mentor relationships, feedback from administrators/faculty regarding their teaching, training in the development of documentation that highlights their teaching successes, and opportunities to gain valuable insight on their teaching from students. As a result, program administrators and directors of Preparing Future Faculty programs should seek to measure programmatic impacts on teaching efficacy to improve the probably that graduate students may be able to walk away from PFF with the strongest possible levels of teaching efficacy. By evaluating more closely the professional identity development of

participating fellows, program directors, administrators, and other stakeholders of PFF may be able to more precisely devise methods that enhance teaching efficacy, a concept that is heavily influenced by context. Anita Woolfolk Hoy (2004) summarized it best in the following manner: Teacher efficacy is highly context-specific, too. A teacher, for example, who feels highly efficacious about instructing her honors literature class may feel less efficacious about teaching freshman composition or vice versa. Therefore, in making an efficacy judgment, it is necessary to assess ones strengths and weaknesses in relation to the requirements of the task at hand. One of the things that makes teachers efficacy judgments so powerful is the cyclical nature of the

21

process. Greater efficacy leads to greater effort and persistence, which leads to better performance (a new mastery experience), which in turn leads to greater efficacy. The reverse is also true. Lower efficacy leads to less effort and giving up easily, which leads to poor teaching outcomes, which then produce decreased efficacy. The research on self-efficacy development suggests that efficacy judgments are most malleable in the early stages of mastering a skill and become more set with experienceat least as long as the context and task remain relatively stable. So it makes sense that early teaching experiences would be important shapers of efficacy judgments. If these early experiences are positive, then new teachers are better able to persist in the face of the inevitable disappointments and discouragements of the first attempts at college teaching. On the other hand, unsuccessful early experiences in teaching as TAs can direct graduate students away from the professoriate. What do we know about encouraging the emerging efficacy beliefs of teaching assistants? Heppner (1994) described a three-credit-hour course for GTAs in the teaching of psychology conducted over two semesters that resulted in improved self-efficacy for teaching. In contrast to the usual finding that mastery experiences are the most important sources of efficacy, Heppner found that about 75% of the influences on efficacy described by the GTAs were forms of verbal feedback, often from their students. The practicum had taught these novice teachers how to use peer consultation to get feedback from students and this process proved a powerful source of efficacy information. In addition, discussion in the practicum helped participants see their fears and anxieties as normal and appropriate. The remaining 25% of the influences on efficacy were categorized as mastery related, such as "coming up with a good way to lecture about a difficult topic." To improve their mastery, these novice teachers wanted more knowledge about establishing personal teaching philosophies and goals, using learning objectives to guide teaching, developing critical thinking in their students, understanding students developmental needs, facilitating productive discussion and collaborative class projects, and handling unmotivated students as well as the nuts and bolts of planning such as constructing syllabi and assignments. Providing such pedagogical tools helps. Prieto and Meyers (1999) found that GTAs in a national survey who received formal training in teaching had higher self-efficacy scores than GTAs who received no training, regardless of the respondents previous amount of teaching experience. In sum, sense of efficacy is a valuable outcome of early teaching experiences and can be fostered with specific training that provides needed pedagogical knowledge, a variety of forms of feedback, and social support that normalizes the predictable fears of novice teachers. Consequently, a move to explore possible relationships between teaching efficacy and professional identity development would strengthen our understanding of how faculty preparation programs impact the integrity of the instructional components of doctoral training.

22

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY Institutions and Participants A sample of approximately 750 graduate students from eleven Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) institutions was invited to participate in this study. Of the 750 graduate students solicited to participate in the study, 223 students (30%) responded to the survey with a 92% (204) completion rate. Additionally, 15 program directors and graduate assistants of the PFF programs at the 11 institutions participated in the interview portion of the research project. Two of the 15 persons interviewed were graduate student assistants for their programs. The remaining 13 interviewees were PFF program directors who additionally served their institutions as: graduate school deans, assistant deans, and associate deans; departmental professors; directors of institutes for teaching/instruction, learning, and research; vice presidents for academic affairs; and, vice provosts for academic personnel and research. The national PFF initiative (1993-2002) took place in four related phases. In Phases I and II, with funding from the Pew Charitable Trusts, major and minor grant funds were awarded to 24 institutions to develop model programs that more effectively prepare doctoral students (Gaff, et al, 2000). Phase II extended the pilot project of Phase I to other institutions and deepened the program (Gaff, et al., 2000). Later, through the financial support of the National Science Foundation, the program was streamlined to tailor discipline specific programs; mathematics and science in Phase III and the humanities and social sciences in Phase IV via a private gift (Gaff, et al., 2000). This investigation solicited those research i.e., leading institutions from Phases I and II for participation in order to (1) minimize compromises to internal validity due to variability across programs at different types of institutions and (2) to

23

maintain focus on those institutions that are the producers of PhDs i.e., producers of future faculty and trainers of doctoral students. The invitation to participate was extended to all PFF fellows and program directors at the 24 selected institutions who were involved in the program at the time of this study. For the purposes of this study, Fellows were considered to be doctoral students in any disciplinary fields who were current fellows in their institutions PFF program at the time of this study. Program Directors were considered to be those individuals having administrative oversight of the day-to-day program at the time of this study. Demographic information for fellows was examined across age, gender, ethnicity, major, length of time in PFF, and length of time in a doctoral program. The 24 programs selected for this study were chosen from 24 institutions that have the longest standing PFF programs as implemented under the national PFF initiative. The

institutions housing these programs were instrumental in the development and institutionalization of the PFF curriculum relevant to this study (Gaff, et al., 2000). Consequently, the researcher concluded that these programs house ideal curricula as they have served as a practical model of design for subsequent programs. Moreover, the possibility that these programs provide a reliable and credible framework indicative of PFF programs at other institutions is most likely. The PFF programs of interest for the study were located at the leading doctoral degree granting institutions from PFF Phases I and II (Gaff, et al., 2000). Eight of the institutions were classified by the Carnegie Foundation as research universities with High Research Activity (level 16, while 14 were classified as research universities with Very High Research Activity (level 15) (Carnegie Foundation, 2008). Thirteen institutions are located in the eastern half of the United

24

States, 5 in the south, 2 in the central states, and 2 on the west coast. On average, PFF programs are a two-year commitment that runs concurrently with participants doctoral program of study.

Sampling A purposive sample of 24 PFF programs was selected for this study. Of the 24 PFF programs at the 24 institutions receiving the original grant funding of PFF during Phases I and II of the program, only 17 were found to be still in operation. Those 17 institutions were contacted via telephone and email information obtained from the institutions' websites and the national PFF website (www.preparing-faculty.org). Of the 17 institutions contacted, 16 responded, and of those 16, eleven followed through with participating in the study. Institutions participated in the study via telephone interviews of the program directors and the completion of an online survey (i.e., the Preparing Future Faculty - Professional Identity Development Survey - PFF-PIDS) by graduate students of the various PFF programs. Purposive sampling is a nonrandom sampling technique that allows the researcher to identify criteria for selecting a sample based on his/her experience and prior knowledge of the sample group (Gay, L. and Airasian, P., 2003). Identifying clear criteria for sample selection provides a basis for describing and defending purposive sampling (Gay, L. and Airasian, P., 2003, p. 115). Consequently, purposive sampling is the preferred sampling method in this study due to the variability in focus and curriculum in PFF programs at various types of institutions. A nonrandom sampling technique is necessary to minimize compromises to the internal validity of the study due to difference among programs. Because PFF programs are commonly instituted campus-wide, within a graduate school, or within select departments, the researcher focused on doctoral granting institutions using the following criteria: they (1) act or acted as the lead

25

institution to a cluster of various institutions that partner together, (2) house PFF programs within their graduate schools allowing the participation of doctoral students across many disciplines, (3) have a significant focus on research as indicated by their Carnegie classification, and (4) have, outside of PFF, offered a traditional model of doctoral preparation with a heavy focus on research and limited training in teaching, research and service outside of PFF. By selecting the original 24 leading institutions from Phases I and II of PFF (Gaff, J., Pruitt-Logan, A., and Weibl, R., 2000), this study has direct generalizability for PFF programs at doctoral granting institutions, and indirect implications for PFF programs at other institutions. Generalizability is increased through a purposive sampling of the original 24 leading institutions from Phases I and II of PFF because subsequent programs that were developed in PFF Phases III and IV- as well as PFF programs developed thereafter - have been modeled after the PFF programs of the initial two phases of the project. Consequently, as the longest running and most modeled programs, it is assumed that the original 24 participating institutions house the most comprehensive, extensive, and most documented PFF programs to date.

Instrument Development The primary purpose of the Preparing Future Faculty Professional Identity Development Survey (PFF-PIDS) (Appendix D) is to assess the degree to which program participants have taken on a professional identity (Appendix D is a representation of the PFF-PIDS in its final form). Professional identity development is the process whereby individuals become

comfortable in career related roles and responsibilities, adopting the norms, values, and attitudes of the profession. It is how one begins to perceive self within the context of professional environment, peers, and community (Costello, 2005). The PFF-PIDS was designed to assess the

26

degree to which program participants have developed a salient professional identity by (1) determining the extent to which relationships exist among professional identity (PID), students career expectations (CE), and teaching efficacy (TE); and, by (2) examining whether PID is a significant predictor of CE and TE. First, a letter of Introduction and Invitation (Appendix A) was emailed to PFF program directors at the 17 remaining programs at the 24 research institutions having received original grant funding during Phase I of PFF. Appendix A is a representation of this letter which summarizes the goal and intent of the study. Next, following positive responses from program directors, a follow-up email (Appendix B) was sent in reply to program directors. Appendix B is a representation of this second step: an email requesting a convenient time and date to conduct the interview that also provided program directors with an Institutional Review Board interview consent form (Appendix F) to be returned, signed, via fax, postal mail or email prior to the interview. Appendix F is a representation of the IRB interview consent form. Following the

receipt of consent forms, telephone conversations with the program directors were audio-tape recorded and transcribed for later analysis. The protocol followed for the semi-structured

interviews with program directors is represented in Appendix E. The semi-structured interview is part of the triangulation process (i.e., interview of program directors, content analysis of online PFF curricula, and, a review of PFF literature) that was conducted for the purpose of strengthening the validity and reliability of the PFF-PIDS. The major themes that emerged as a result of the telephone interviews were useful in contextualizing questions for the survey as well as verifying information gathered via the online content analysis and the review of literature. An analysis of the online content of the Preparing Future Faculty programs at the institutions of interest to this research showed that most programs continue to adopt the original

27

PFF format, in that, training in teaching, job preparation, and mentorship remain important programmatic components. Some program had heavier emphasis in teaching, while others had heavier emphasis in mentorship, and still others focused on job preparation. A few of the programs have been absorbed into on-campus centers for teaching and learning while some are limited to certain departments. For the most part, programs were housed within graduate schools under the direction of the schools dean or other administrator. Workshops, coursework,

visitation of partner campuses and mentor assignments were characteristic of most programs. A small number of the programs were strictly limited to coursework, offering students 1-3 selected courses to take to fulfill PFF requirements. The interviews of program directors yielded four emergent themes: the notion that students deal with dual identities (graduate student vs. young professional) during their initial time in PFF; the subjectivity of the objectives of program directors; the thought that the current generation of PFF advocates may be a dying breed; and implications of the cultural context and environment of the university on PFFs students of color. This information was triangulated with information from PFF literature to develop an initial set of items for the PFF-PIDS. Finally, after triangulating all of the data collected from the interviews of program directors, content analysis of the various online curricula for the PFF programs, and the review of PFF literature, an initial draft of the PFF-PIDS was developed. Following a reduction of items by submitting the initial draft to a panel of judges and subjecting the resulting smaller scale to a Cronbach alpha, a final draft of the survey was produced and prepared for submission to graduate students of 11 PFF programs across the United States.

28

Internal Consistency Reliability Rating of PFF-PIDS - Pilot Study Internal consistency is obtained by grouping items within a survey that measure the same concept (Trochim, 2002). Cronbachs alpha is the measurement reflecting how well a set of items (or variables) quantify a single unidimensional latent construct, and is based on the mean or average correlation of each item in the scale with every other item (Morgan and Griego, 1998). According to these researchers, it is the most commonly used type of internal consistency reliability. Green and Salkind (2003) explained that the greater the consistency in responses among items, the higher the coefficient alpha. Cronbachs alpha coefficient was calculated to measure the internal consistency reliability of the 30-item Preparing Future Faculty Professional Identify Development SurveyPilot (PFF-PIDS Pilot). The total scale reliability of the 30-item instrument was tested and the Cronbach alpha was a robust .98. Additionally, a coefficient alpha was calculated for each subscale: professional identity development, .96; teaching efficacy,.96; and career expectations, .96 (see Appendix H). Landis and Kochs (1977) benchmarks were employed to determine reliability. The benchmarks were denoted as (a) 0 to .20 as slightly reliable; (b) .21 to .40 as fairly reliable; (c) .41 to .60 as moderately reliable; (d) .61 to .80 as substantially reliable; and (e) .80 to 1.0 as almost perfect (Landis and Koch, 1977, p.168). Consequentially, the reliability for each of the three subscales and the total scale of the PFF-PIDS is almost perfect. In order to test the reliability of the research instrument, the researcher first verified that all items used the same Likert-type metric and no items needed to be reverse-scaled. The Likerttype scale ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree) for each statement listed within the instrument. According to Green and Salkind (2003), three assumptions must first be met before calculating coefficient alpha. The first of these assumptions is every item is assumed

29

to be equivalent to every other item (p. 311). The second of these assumptions is errors in measurement between parts are unrelated (p. 311). The third and final assumption is an item is a sum of its true and its error scores (p. 311). The researcher felt confident that all three assumptions were met before proceeding to a reliability analysis using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, Version 16.0 for Windows).

Procedures This project utilized a mixed methods approach to instrument development and data collection qualitative and quantitative. The initial portion of this research (i.e., instrument development) is a triangulation of qualitative data collected to yield the information necessary to construct a quantitative measure of professional identity development the Preparing Future Faculty Professional Identity Development Survey (PFF-PIDS). Data were collected via taperecorded telephone interviews with PFF program directors, a content analysis of online PFF curricula, and a review of PFF literature. By triangulating these data sources, the researcher sought to not only strengthen the studys internal validity, but develop the material necessary for drafting a quantitative measure of professional identity. Additionally, these data served as a basis for the generation of scale items and emergent themes. Eighty items were generated on the initial scale. All items were submitted to a panel of seven judges to determine whether each item was consistent with the defined variables of the study (i.e., professional identity development, teaching efficacy, and students' career expectations). Items that received 80% agreement or more were retained and items receiving 65%-79% agreement were revised. Following these revisions the scale was further reduced to 30 items. A pilot was then conducted using the revised survey. Participants in the pilot study consisted of 17 former participants of the Preparing Future

30

Faculty program. Data collected from the pilot study were subjected to a Cronbach Alpha test to determine the internal consistency of the scale (i.e., how all the items in the survey related to all other items and to the total test). Internal consistency was set at .70. The Cronbachs Alpha test was preferred over the Kuder-Richardson (KR) test of internal consistency because survey items are scored along a Likert scale and consequently have more than two scores. Following the pilot study and test of Cronbachs Alpha, the survey was finalized to include 30 items. The second portion of this research (i.e., data collection) took place over approximately four weeks. The PFF-PIDS was used to collect quantitative data from 223 PFF program

participants. To solicit student responses, the researcher emailed program directors a message to forward to their program participants - masters and doctoral level students - that included a brief message inviting them to participate in the study by completing an online survey. Appendix C is a representation of this step which includes a link to the PFF-PIDS (powered by Survey Monkey). The link within the email took readers to the PFF-PIDS a Likert-scaled, online survey that opens with a preamble for consent (Appendix G) followed by a brief survey of demographic information. Appendix G is a representation of the preamble for consent which will be viewed as the first page of the online survey. Of the approximately 750 students solicited, 223

responded to the survey yielding a response rate of 30% (with a 92% [204] completion rate). Data from the PFF-PIDS were used to: (1) determine the extent to which relationships exist among professional identity (PID), students career expectations (SCE), and teaching efficacy (TE), and (2) examine whether PID is a significant predictor of SCE and TE.

31

Deletion of Research Questions Six, Seven and Eight Research questions 6, 7, and 8 were as follows: Q6 = Are students who are more involved in PFF professional development activities more salient in their professional identity than those who are less involved? Q7 = Do students who are more involved in PFF professional development activities have more realistic career expectations than those who are less involved? Q8 = Do students who are more involved in PFF professional development activities have higher levels of teaching efficacy than those who are less involved? During the data triangulation process, particularly the online content analysis of programmatic criteria, it became difficult to establish consistency regarding participation criteria for program participants. Consequently, the objective to establish levels of programmatic involvement

among PFF fellows was abandoned. During the online content analysis of the various program curricula the variation between programs regarding the requirements necessary to complete the program was extensive. Variability included: whether or not an independent teaching

opportunity was required or even available; mandates for required coursework (i.e., whether none or a few courses are required for completion); length of time in program; whether or not an evaluated teaching experience was required; whether students were required to meet with assigned mentors; and/or, the number of sessions (i.e., workshops, panel discussions, end of the year events), if any, that students were required to attend. The variability was extensive enough to challenge the overall focus of the PFF-PIDS which was to better understand relationships between professional identity development, teaching efficacy, and students career expectations. The various items necessary to address the many requirements among programs would have lengthened the items and focus of the instrument beyond its original intent. Consequently,

32

research questions 6, 7, and 8 were disregarded for this project. This disregard in no way indicates the level of importance of these topics to PFF programs. These questions, however, would be more adequately served in a separate research study designed to strictly address the variability in program curricula and student involvement.

Data Collection An estimated 750 graduate student were reported as current participants in Preparing Future Faculty programs at the eleven research institutions petitioned to participate in this study. The researcher anticipated a traditional 30% response rate (i.e. about 250 responses). As

anticipated, the online survey, the PFF-PIDS, was submitted by 223 students (close to 30%) with a 92% completion rate.

Data Analysis Descriptive statistics were used to secure demographic information about research participants. A pearson r was conducted on final survey responses to determine the degree to which professional identity development correlates with students' career expectations and teaching efficacy. A linear regression equation was conducted to determine the predictive value of professional identity development on students' career expectations, as well as, professional identity development on teaching efficacy.

33

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS This research used a combination of quantitative and qualitative data in a mixed methods approach to examine relationships between professional identity, career expectations, and teacher efficacy. The research followed a sequential exploratory design wherein qualitative data were collected and analyzed, then quantitative data were collected and analyzed, and finally the results were integrated to yield the outcome of the investigation. This chapter includes a report of the findings related to the purpose of the study. The purpose of the study was threefold. The first goal was to develop a valid instrument that reliably measures Professional Identity Development (PID) among Preparing Future faculty (PFF) fellows. The second goal was to determine if a relationship existed between PID and Teaching Efficacy (TE) and also between PID and Students Career Expectations (SCE). The third goal was to examine whether PID is a significant predictor of SCE and TE. Additionally, the study sought to generate a measure that may be used by PFF administrators to assess the degree to which program participants have taken on professional identity.

Demographic Information Interview Participants Fifteen individuals from 11 institutions participated in the interview portion of this project. Two of the 15 persons interviewed were graduate student assistants for PFF. The remaining 13 interviewees were PFF program directors who additionally served their institutions as: graduate school deans, assistant deans, and associate deans; departmental professors; directors of institutes for teaching/instruction, learning, and research; vice presidents for academic affairs; and, vice provosts for academic personnel and research.

34

Emergent Themes The interview questions for this project consisted of 10 open-ended questions (see Appendix E). The interviews were originally slated to last between 15-20 minutes. However, the typical interview averaged between 30-45 minutes as Program Directors and students were eager to share and describe the experiences of PFF students on their campus as well as learn more about this project. Primarily, interviewees were open and obliging with regard to sharing their campus experiences. Throughout the interviews, several themes emerged: the notion that students deal with dual identities (graduate student vs. young professional) during their initial time in PFF; the subjectivity of the objectives of program directors; the thought that the current generation of PFF advocates may be a dying breed; and implications of the cultural context and environment of the university on PFFs students of color.

Dual Identities When program directors were asked item #3 in the interview protocol: Can you describe the difference, if any, that you may notice in the professionalism and career objectives of your students at the beginning vs. the end of PFF training, responses typically centered on some of the preconceived notions about faculty life that students have. Directors addressed overt changes in students belief systems as personal views gave way to professional understanding. For example, Harvey noted: they have an increased awareness of the institutions which they might be interested in teaching. They have an increased awareness of what constitutes teaching, research, and service at a small liberal arts type of setting and even the associates level, or community college level.

35

Carl, in discussing the evolution of students thinking about academic careers throughout his programs coursework, added, I think the evolution of the students through the two courses is really kind of having their eyes open to the different kinds of work that goes on at different institutions and really trying to align that with what their own values are and where they want to work. What is reflected in these two statements is the notion that students, at some cognitive level, are working to merge their personal or graduate student identities, with that of a professional one. This identity consonance is a non-traumatic phenomenon that occurs when the

acquisition of a new identity blends smoothly with existing personal identities (Costello, 2005). Some students, however, do not have such smooth experiences, as noted by

Harvey: We will have some students to come in and actually experience discomfort with some of [the] strategies that we model in the classroom. But as they try one or two [strategies] in their settingwe get increased interest generally, and [they] really are proactive by the end of the program. This initial discomfort is described by Costello (2005) as identity dissonance which is a traumatic phenomenon that occurs when the acquisition of a new identity clashes with existing personal identities. As a result, individuals can work through or fail to resolve this conflict. They may emerge with positive identity dissonance or negative identity dissonance. Costello (2005) further describes these phenomena as the following: Positive Identity

Dissonance is the empowerment one feels as a result of identity dissonance; occurs when the fledgling professional identity is more socially valued than the personal identity it is

36

displacing (Costello, 2005, p. 28). Negative Identity Dissonance, however, is the clash of ones nascent professional identities against their valued personal identities [without] benefit or resolve (Costello, 2005, p. 28). Consequently, program directors should expect students to be closed to certain training methods. Some students may resolve these issues, while others may not. One program director describes the process in this way: They are much more knowledgeable about the roles and responsibilities of faculty members. They are much more knowledgeable about the kinds of

institutions where careers might be pursued. Theyre much more knowledgeable about issues in higher education and they assume a professional [demeanor] about them early on. They become transformed from graduate student to professional after a semester or two which usually involves a course and workshops and being around other students who discuss these matters. They also come in pretty

uninformed about the professoriate. They leave sometimes knowing more than the faculty in some areas, areas like [the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning], and teaching with technology. In addition to developing a more informed understanding of the various roles of faculty at different institutions and non-lecture teaching techniques, students begin to develop a stronger sense of membership to the academy. As noted by Caroline, We find that students begin tosocialize more, they submit papers to conferences and try to get on conference agendas. Many have said that the job interview session has made such a difference to know how to pace yourself and to create a bridge in transitioning.

37

Subjectivity The level of subjectivity involved in the shaping of PFF programs became evident during some of the interviews. Some program directors noted a desire to show more of the positive aspects of faculty careers rather than highlight or discuss the negative. For example, one

program director expressed her concern with sharing too much with students as to not scare them off from choosing an academic career. Additionally, some program directors view the

preparation for teaching as important while others view preparation for securing the first job as critical. Although all of the program directors expressed a concern for making sure that students gained a reasonable level of expectation and practical preparation for life in academe, most appeared to have at least one dominant view about certain PFF activities that could or would make that happen.

Dying Breed Early in the interview, it became clear that a number of program directors were relatively new in their position. Even at the conclusion of this project, three former PFF program directors had left their positions. Resultantly, the issue of passing the torch of PFF on to the next generation of administrators or faculty was brought into question. One of the first items in the interview protocol addressed the length of time each program director had been in his/her position. More than half noted that they were new in their position as director and often referenced previous directors as points of referral regarding questions related to their programs past history. This dilemma was addressed by Lisa when asked at the end of the interview whether she had any additional comments or questions. She stated:

38

Well I have [one] concern, that, what started as a massive movement with a term that everybody understood, fifteen years later, you go to a national meetingand theres nothing on the agenda called Preparing Future Faculty. A lot of newer [academics] who were not deans fifteen years ago when we started this, they dont know what youre talking about. There are just a few disciples left that maintain these types of programs. There are some. I think the AGEP [Alliance for

Graduate Education and the Professoriate] funding from NSF [National Science Foundation] has helped to perpetuate this idea. I think the Compact for Faculty Diversity has helped to perpetuate the idea. But, the members, they dont call themselves PFF. We have students that call themselves PFFers, we have staff assigned to it, graduate student assistants who work with it. But, when this [administrator] leaves, its uncertain as to whether it will continue. It might have legs, but it might not. Every dean has his own priorities and interests. Unless theres a funding mechanism like AGEP out there that sort of says preparing for the professoriate is important, it would be hard to maintain it. So, only time will tell. Lisas comments reflect the changing landscape of some PFF programs as many have been fazed into other on-campus initiatives like Centers for Teaching and Learning. And, although some may still carry the title of Preparing Future Faculty, they become decentralized or shifted to other campus initiatives following a changing of the administrative guard.

39

Context and Environment Finally, a few of the program directors expressed concern regarding the degree to which their programs are providing adequate support for students of color. They expressed a need for better understanding the extent to which the need and type of mentorship and support for students of color may differ for students of majority culture at Traditionally White Institutions (TWIs).

Survey Respondents The Preparing Future Faculty Professional Identity Development Survey (PFF-PIDS) included a series of questions that collected demographic data on participants. The purpose of collecting the demographic information was to provide a descriptive view of the participants. The first demographic item asked for the gender of survey respondents. Slightly less than 7 out of every 10 (63.9%) PFF fellows surveyed were females (see Table 1).

Table 1 Gender of Respondents Gender Male Female Total Response Rate The original population consisted of approximately 250 PFF fellows enrolled for the fall 2009 semester at 24 grant-funded PFF programs. A purposive sample of 24 PFF programs was Frequency 78 144 222 Percent 35.1 64.9 100.0

40

selected for this study. Of the estimated 250 PFF fellows, 222 returned completed questionnaires for an 88.8% return rate.

Description of the Sample In the second demographic item, participants were asked to indicate their year in their doctorate program. Almost 3 out of every 10 (27.5%) were Doctoral Year 5 students; almost one fourth (23%) were Doctoral Year 4 students (see Table 2). The third demographic item inquired about the year in the Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) program. Almost 3 out of every 10 fellows (27.9%) were in their first semester (see Table 3). When asked about their academic major, a wide variety of majors were represented in the participants. The numerous majors represented among the PFF fellows included sociology, psychology, chemistry, history, and family social science. Six participants (2.7%) did not report their major field information. Table 2 Year in Academic Program Year in Academic Program Masters Doctoral Year 1 Doctoral Year 2 Doctoral Year 3 Doctoral Year 4 Doctoral Year 5 Postdoctoral Total Frequency 15 8 21 38 51 61 28 222 Percent 6.8 3.6 9.5 17.1 23.0 27.5 12.6 100.0

Of the surveys received, three fourth of the respondents (75.2%) described themselves as Caucasian; 10.8% described themselves as Asian; 8.1% described themselves as Black or African American (see Table 4).

41

Table 3 Year in Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) Program Year in PFF Program First Semester Second Semester Third Semester Fourth Semester Dont Know Other Total Frequency 62 35 21 25 12 67 222 Table 4 Ethnicity of Survey Respondents Race/Ethnicity African American Asian Caucasian Latino Other Total Frequency 18 24 167 8 5 222 Percent 8.1 10.8 75.2 3.6 2.3 100.0 Percent 27.9 15.8 9.5 11.3 5.4 30.2 100.0

Survey respondents were asked to provide their age. Twenty three (10.4%) respondents were in the 18-25 years of age category; 138 (62.2%) respondents were in the 26-33 years of age category. Forty two (18.9%) respondents were in the 34-41 years of age category; 19 (8.6%) respondents were in the 42 plus age category (see Table 5). When asked about their preferred career choice, almost two thirds (64.9%) indicated academic (teaching) (see Table 6).

Participant Experiences PFF fellows were asked why they signed up for participation in the Preparing Future Faculty program. Slightly more than half (51.8%) stated they wanted to be a professor and sought out additional training (see Table 7).

42

Table 5 Age of Survey Respondents Age 18-25 26-33 34-41 42 + Total Frequency 23 138 42 19 222 Percent 10.4 62.2 18.9 8.6 100.0

Table 6 Preferred Career Choice of Survey Respondents Career Choice Frequency Academic (teaching) 144 Academic (administrative) 6 Industry 12 Government 10 Non-profit 6 Other 9 Not Sure 33 Total 220 Note. Two respondents did not report a preferred career choice. Percent 65.5 2.7 5.5 4.5 2.7 4.1 15.0 100.0

Table 7 Reasons for Participation in PFF Program Reasons Participation is required for a fellowship/scholarship that I receive Participation is required in my program My advisor/faculty member strongly suggested it I was curious about faculty careers I want to be a professor, so I sought out additional training I was hoping to find some direction in choosing a career Other Total Frequency 9 16 13 28 115 11 24 216 Percent 4.2 7.4 6.0 13.0 53.2 5.1 11.1 100.0

Note. Six respondents did not report a reason for participation in PFF program.

43

Responding PFF fellows were asked about their teaching experiences at the K-12, undergraduate, and graduate levels. The choices were (a) one semester, (b) one year, (c) two years, and (d) three or more years. One fourth (25.0%) of survey respondents had teaching experience at the K-12 Grade level. Slightly more than one fourth (26.5%) of survey respondents had teaching experience at the undergraduate level. Slightly more than 4 out of every 10 respondents had one semester of teaching experience at the graduate school level (see Table 8). PFF fellows were asked if they had received formal professional development training in teaching and/or learning outside of PFF. Slightly less than half (46.5%) indicated Yes. Survey respondents were asked if they were currently pursuing or planning to pursue a certificate in- or related to-university teaching/faculty development while in graduate school. Slightly more than one third (35.2%) indicated Yes. When asked if they would recommend PFF to other students, a vast majority (96.3%) indicated Yes. PFF fellows were asked to rate their level of interest in faculty jobs before becoming involved in PFF and after becoming involved in PFF. Response choices were (a) very interested, (b) interested, (c) somewhat interested, and (d) not interested. More than half (54.4%) were interested in faculty jobs before becoming involved in PFF (see Table 9); a similar percentage (56.9%) was interested in faculty jobs after becoming involved in PFF (see Table 10).

Reliability of Instrumentation Descriptive Analysis of Preparing Future Faculty Professional Identity Development Survey (PFF-PIDS) Table 11 presents the mean scores on the subscales of the Preparing Future Faculty Professional Development Identity Development Survey (PFF-PIDS). The highest mean was for

44

Teaching Efficacy (M = 3.16, SD = .43); the lowest mean was for Professional Identity Development (M = 2.92, SD = .38).

Table 8 PFF Fellows Teaching Experience at Grades K-12, Undergraduate Level and Graduate Level Teaching Experience One Semester One Year Two Years Three Years + Total Frequency Grades K-12 12 7 9 20 48 Undergraduate 29 39 27 52 147 Graduate 38 26 14 14 92 45 Percent 25.0 14.6 18.8 41.7 100.0

One Semester One Year Two Years Three Years + Total

19.7 26.5 18.4 35.4 100.0

One Semester One Year Two Years Three Years + Total

41.3 28.3 15.2 15.2 100.0

Table 9 PFF Fellows Interest in Faculty Jobs before Involvement in PFF Level of Interest Frequency Very Interested 118 Interested 57 Somewhat Interested 38 Not Interested 4 Total 217 Note. Five survey respondents did not respond to this item. Percent 54.4 26.3 17.5 1.8 100.0

Table 10 PFF Fellows Interest in Faculty Jobs after Involvement in PFF Level of Interest Frequency Very Interested 123 Interested 64 Somewhat Interested 21 Not Interested 8 Total 216 Note. Six survey respondents did not respond to this item. Table 11 Descriptive Statistics for PFF-PIDS Subscales Subscale Professional Identity Development Teaching Efficacy Career Expectations N 215 213 215 Minimum 1.60 1.67 2.00 Maximum 4.00 4.00 3.80 M 2.92 3.16 2.93 SD .38 .43 .34 Percent 56.9 29.6 9.7 3.7 100.0

Research Question One The study poses the following research question: Is there a relationship between professional identity development and career expectations among Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) fellows? Research Question One was addressed by testing the following null hypothesis:

46

Null Hypothesis One There is no significant correlation, at the .05 level of confidence, between professional identity development and career expectations among PFF fellows. Pearson correlations were used to examine the relationship between professional identity development and career expectations. Table 12 displays the correlation between professional identity development and career expectations. As shown in Table 12, a significant relationship was found between professional identity development and career expectations (r = .522, p < .001). This demonstrates that students who are more salient in their professional identity also have more realistic expectations of the roles and responsibilities they will have as new faculty. Based on these findings, the null hypothesis of no significant correlation between professional identity development and career expectations was rejected.

Research Question Two The study poses the following research question: Is there a relationship between professional identity development and teaching efficacy among PFF fellows? Research Question Two was addressed by testing the following null hypothesis:

Null Hypothesis Two There is no significant correlation, at the .05 level of confidence, between professional identity development and teaching efficacy among PFF fellows. Pearson correlations were used to examine the relationship between professional identity development and teaching efficacy. Table 13 displays the correlation between professional identity development and teaching efficacy.

47

Table 12 Bivarate Correlation Matrix of Professional Identity Development and Career Expectations 1. Professional Identity Development Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 2. Career Expectations Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 1 1.000 . 215 .522** .000 215 2 .522** .000 215 1.000 . 215

Table 13 Bivarate Correlation Matrix of Professional Identity Development and Teaching Efficacy 3. Professional Identity Development Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 4. Teaching Efficacy Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 1 1.000 . 215 .594** .000 215 2 .594** .000 215 1.000 . 215

As shown in Table 13, a significant relationship was found between professional identity development and teaching efficacy (r =.594, p < .001). This means that as students demonstrate stronger levels of professional identity development, they also show themselves to be more efficacious in their teaching. Based on these findings, the null hypothesis of no significant correlation between professional identity development and teaching efficacy was rejected.

48

Research Question Three The study poses the following research question: What is the consistency reliability of the PFF Professional Identity Development Scale that measures PFF fellows professional identity development, career expectations, and teaching efficacy? Reliability is the consistency of a measurement, or the degree to which an instrument measures the same way each time it is used under the same conditions with the same subjects (Trochim, 2002). According to Trochim, there are two ways that reliability is normally estimated, through the test/retest method and the demonstration of internal consistency. To investigate the internal consistency of the factors, Cronbachs alpha coefficient was computed. The reliability was computed at .98 for the PFF-PIDS Pilot and .87 for the PFF-PIDS in its final form. Landis and Kochs (1977) benchmarks were employed to determine reliability. The benchmarks were denoted as (a) 0 to .20 as slightly reliable; (b) .21 to .40 as fairly reliable; (c) .41 to .60 as moderately reliable; (d) .61 to .80 as substantially reliable; and (e) .80 to 1.0 as almost perfect (Landis and Koch, 1977, p. 168). As stated previously, Cronbachs alpha coefficient was conducted to measure the internal consistency reliability of the 30-item PFF Professional Identity Development Scale. The reliability was computed at .87 for the PFF-PIDS in its final form. According to Landis and Koch (1977), .87 was almost perfect (p. 168). The item analysis for the PFF Professional Identity Development Scale Pilot is shown in Table 14. According to Green and Salkind (2003), three assumptions must first be met before calculating coefficient alpha. The first of these assumptions is every item is assumed to be equivalent to every other item (p. 311). The second of these assumptions is errors in measurement between parts are unrelated (p. 311). The third and final assumption is an item is

49

a sum of its true and its error scores (p. 311). The researcher felt confident that all three assumptions were met before proceeding to a reliability analysis using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 16.0 for Windows).

Table 14 Item Analysis for the 30-Item PFF Professional Identity Development Scale-Pilot Item No.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

Corrected Cronbachs Alpha, if Item-Total Item Correlation Deleted .8661 .9846 .8802 .9846 .8593 .9847 .9203 .9848 .8802 .9846 .8777 .9845 .6537 .9854 .8733 .9845 .6244 .9855 .8701 .9846 .8593 .9847 .7481 .9856 .8214 .9848 .9168 .9843 .8793 .9846 .7940 .9849 .8516 .9846 .9165 .9844 .8802 .9846 .8661 .9846 .8733 .9845 .8733 .9845 .7620 .9850 .9203 .9843 .6244 .9855 .8214 .9848 .8928 .9844 .9362 .9846 .7940 .9849 .8661 .9846

Note. n = 16; n of items = 30; Cronbachs Alpha = .9852 50

All items used the same Likert-type metric and no items needed to be reversed scored. The Likert-type scale ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree) for each statement listed within the instrument. The researcher found no items with a negative corrected item-total.

Research Question Four The study poses the following research question: Is professional identity development a significant predictor of career expectations among PFF fellows?

Null Hypothesis Four Professional identity development is not a significant predictor of career expectations among PFF fellows. Linear regression analysis was performed to determine if professional identity development was a significant predictor variable of career expectations among PFF fellows. The analysis used the Career Expectations mean score as the criterion variable for PFF fellows with the Professional Identity Development mean score entered as the predictor variable (see Table 15). The null hypothesis was rejected. Table 15 Linear Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Career Expectations for PFF Fellows Model 1
a.

R .522a

R2 .272

Adjusted R2 .269

Std. Error of the Estimate .2920

Predictors: (Constant), Professional Identity Development Mean Score

51

Analysis of Variance ANOVA Model 1 Regression Residual Total Sum of Squares 6.801 18.163 24.964 df 1 213 214 Mean Square 6.801 8.527E-02 F 79.762 Sig. .000a

a.

Predictors: (Constant), Professional Identity Development Mean Score

Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 1.565 .468 .154 .052 Standardized Coefficients Beta .522

Variables (Constant) Professional Identity Development Mean Score

a.

t 10.160 8.931

Sig. .000 .000

Dependent Variable: Career Expectations Mean Score In the regression analysis (Table 15), 27% of variance was accounted for PFF fellows

with the given predictor. The Professional Identity Development predictor variable was significant, F (1, 214) = 79.762, p < .001. Findings demonstrate that for PFF fellows, when Career Expectations was the criterion variable, a significant predictor variable was professional identity development.

Research Question Five The study poses the following research question: Is professional identity development a significant predictor of teaching efficacy among PFF fellows?

52

Null Hypothesis Five Professional identity development is not a significant predictor of teaching efficacy among PFF fellows. Linear regression analysis was performed to determine if professional identity development was a significant predictor of teaching efficacy among PFF fellows. The analysis used teaching efficacy mean score as the criterion variable for PFF fellows with professional identity development mean score entered as the predictor variable (see Table 16). The null hypothesis was rejected. Table 16 Linear Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Teaching Efficacy for PFF Fellows Model 1
b.

R .594a

R2 .352

Adjusted R2 .349

Std. Error of the Estimate .3461

Predictors: (Constant), Professional Identity Development Mean Score ANOVA

Model 1 Regression Residual Total

Sum of Squares 13.747 25.276 39.023

df 1 211 212

Mean Square 13.747 .120

F 114.760

Sig. .000a

b.

Predictors: (Constant), Professional Identity Development Mean Score Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 1.208 .184 .669 .062 Standardized Coefficients Beta .594

Variables (Constant) PID Mean Score

b.

t 6.574 10.713

Sig. .000 .000

Dependent Variable: Teaching Efficacy Mean Score

53

In the regression analysis (Table 16), 35% of variance was accounted for PFF fellows with the given predictor. The Professional Identity Development predictor variable was significant, F (1, 212) = 114.760, p < .001. Findings demonstrated that for PFF fellows, when teaching efficacy was the criterion variable, professional identity development was a significant predictor variable.

Validation of Instrumentation Content validity was established for the instrument by submitting the PFF-PIDS-Pilot, along with its subscales to a panel of seven judges to determine whether each item was consistent with the defined variables of the study (i.e., professional identity development, teaching efficacy, and students' career expectations). Items that received 80% agreement or more were retained and items receiving 65%-79% agreement were revised. Following these revisions the scale was reduced from 80 to 30 items. A pilot was then conducted using the revised survey.

54

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION Implications and Future Research Due to the correlational significance of professional identity development and teaching efficacy and professional identity development and students career expectations as found in this study, stakeholders in PFF programs should begin to focus more intently on the cognitive changes that accompany PFF training. Identity development, a critical characteristic for doctoral students (Colbeck, 2008), must become an important part of the discussion regarding faculty development training. Given the longevity of PFF programs, their success in changing the face of doctoral education in America, and the extensive body of research documenting their effectiveness, it is critical now to begin to turn the research toward gaining a better understanding of how current program activities impact professional identity development. Such discussions can lead to greater efforts to assess the cognitive processes that are influenced and impacted by PFF curricula and consequently provide the means of strengthening such programs to allow students to more deeply internalize the professional norms, values, ethics, and authority that yield competencies in the "full range" of faculty roles and responsibilities. Institutions of higher learning should continue to think critically regarding their responsibilities in the preparation of graduate students for faculty careers and seek to further refine measures that may be used by PFF administrators to assess the degree to which program participants have taken on a professional identity. Studies such as these will create new ways of looking at how Due to the scarcity of

professional identity development can be researched and assessed.

literature on professional identity development as it relates to programs like PFF, it is important to develop a framework to address the programs immersion of doctoral students into the culture of higher education and the full range of expected faculty roles and responsibilities. Although

55

this conversation is critical for framing a better understanding of the professional development processes common in the socialization experiences of PFF students, we must continue to highlight the internal, cognitive shifts that may occur as students seek to establish a sense of commitment to a lifes work in academe. This study sought to initiate conversations that emphasize a critical need to address the development of a long-term, salient professional identity that motivates, sustains, directs, and proves visionary for Preparing Future Faculty fellows. By focusing on the development of realistic career expectations and a strong sense of teaching efficacy among PFF fellows, this project seeks to add to conversations regarding professional identity development experiences for participants and to highlight the way PFF fellows, as a result of participating in the program, merge their professional identity with their existing identity.

Implications for Educational Psychologists and PFF Program Directors Educational psychologists are always seeking better ways to connect teaching and learning. If there is a better way to teach, the educational psychologist wants to know about it. Similarly, if there is a better way to learn, educational psychologists want to know about that too. When it comes to career preparation programs that have a critical role in preparing the next generation of scholars and shaping the next generation of research and service, it is imperative to understand as much as possible about how students best learn during these training programs. Similarly, with programs like Preparing Future Faculty, it is critical to deepen our understanding about how students create long-term commitments to and understandings of the teaching and learning process as cultivated in todays faculty roles and responsibilities. By shifting our conversations about training new faculty from socialization process to shifts in students

56

cognitive processing of faculty roles and responsibilities, we expand our understanding for student experiences in these programs. This will allow directors to better tailor PFF programs by adopting programmatic curricula and activities that yield more long-term, career sustaining, and career motivating commitments to the cause of teaching and learning for students, and resultantly, stronger professional identities.

Limitations This section of the paper is intended to describe those characteristics that define the parameters in the application or interpretation of the studys results by elaborating on the generalizability and utility of the findings. A purposive sample of 24 PFF programs was selected for this study. Of the 24 PFF programs selected, half (11) participated in the study. Purposive sampling is a nonrandom sampling technique that allows the researcher to identify criteria for selecting a sample based on his/her experience and prior knowledge of the sample group (Gay, L. and Airasian, P., 2003). Purposive sampling is the preferred sampling method in this study due to the variability in focus and curriculum in PFF programs at various types of institutions (i.e., teaching colleges, liberal arts colleges, community colleges, masters granting institutions, etc.). A nonrandom sampling technique is necessary to minimize compromises to the internal validity of the study due to differences among programs. Consequently, the results of this study may be generalizable only to PFF fellows at research institutions. Additionally, the PFF-PIDS included items that, to some extent, assumed students were actively engaged in teaching. Thus, the findings may be most applicable to PFF students who are teaching.

57

Delimitations This section of the paper is intended to describe those characteristics that define the boundaries of inquiry and limit of scope for this study by elaborating on what this project did not intented to study. First, the purpose of this study was to (1) develop a valid instrument that reliably measures Professional Identity Development (PID) among Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) fellows; (2) determine if there is a relationship between PID and Teaching Efficacy (TE) and Students Career Expectations (SCE); (3) examine whether PID is a significant predictor of SCE and TE; and (4) generate a measure that may be used by PFF administrators to assess the degree to which program participants have taken on a professional identity. Consequently, the Preparing Future Faculty program was chosen to provide the context for this study as it is currently one of the longest running faculty development programs to date. Currently, there are many ongoing faculty development Other types of faculty development

programs housed within American institutions.

programs were not of direct interest to this researcher because the focus of this study relied on the similarities across PFF programs and the pool of graduate students of various majors and institutions that it provides. Also of interest was the unique nature of PFF in its

longevity, successful institutionalization across campuses, and grant origins. Additionally, among the PFF literature, many studies take a qualitative approach to assessing student socialization. This study however, utilized a mixed-methods approach incorporating

quantitative data to better understand professional identity among PFF students.

58

REFERENCES Adams, K. (2002). What colleges and universities want in new faculty. Number 7. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Aronson, E. (1997). Back to the future: Retrospective review of Leon Fesingers A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. The American Journal of Psychology, 110(1), 127-137. Artino, A. (2006). Self-Efficacy Beliefs: From Educational Theory to Instructional Practice. Retrieved online from Eric Database, Eric Document ED499094 at http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/3 8/e2/65.pdf. Austin, A., and McDaniels, W. (2006). Using doctoral education to prepare faculty of work within Boyers four domains of scholarship. New Directions for Institutional Research, 129, 51-65. Austin, A.E., and Wulff, D.H. (2004). The challenge to prepare the next generation of faculty. In D.H. Wulff, A.E. Austin, and Associates (Eds.) Paths to the professoriate: Strategies for enriching the preparation of future faculty (pp. 3-16). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bandura, A., (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Bandura, A., (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. Banks, C.H. (2005). Met expectations hypothesis: The use of direct measures to develop participant surveys. Paper presented at the Academy of Human Resource Development International Conference (AHRD). Estes Park, CO, Feb 24-27, 2005, p412-418 (Symp. 18-1). Bourdieu, P. (1990). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Carnegie Classifications Data File, June 11, 2008 Colbeck, C. (2008). Professional identity development: Theory and doctoral education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, (113) Spring 2008, 9-16

59

Costello, C.Y. (2005). Professional identity crisis: Race, class, gender, and success at professional schools. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Cross, W.E. (1991). Shades of Black: Diversity in African-American identity. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. DeNeef, A.L. (2002). The Preparing Future Faculty Program: What difference does it make? Number 8. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Gaff, J., Pruitt-Logan, A., and Weibl, R. (2000). Building the faculty we need: Colleges and universities working together. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities and the Council of Graduate Schools. Gay, L. and Airasian, P. (2003). Educational researcher: Competencies for analysis and applications, 7th ed. Merrill Publishing Company: Upper Saddle River, NJ. Golde, C.M. and Walker, G.E. (eds) (2006). Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing stewards of the discipline. Indianapolis, IN: Jossey-Bass Green, S. B., and Salkind, N. J. (2003). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Landis, J. R., and Koch, G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174. McCoy, D.L. (2006). Entering the academy: Exploring the socialization experiences of African American male faculty. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Baton Rouge, LA. Retrieved October 2, 2006 from Louisiana State University A and M College, Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Library Web site: http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-04052006143046/unrestricted/McCoy_dis.pdf McGowen, K. R., and Hart, L. E. (1990). Still different after all these years: Gender differences in professional identity formation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21, 118-123. Morgan, G. A., and Griego, O. V. (1998). Ease and interpretation of SPSS for Windows: Answering research questions with statistics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Myers, D. (1980). The Inflated Self: Human Illusions and the Biblical Call to Hope. New York: Seabury Press. Newton, C. (2004). Discourse negotiation and identity construction in Preparing Future Faculty programs (Doctoral dissertation, University of Louisville, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65 (5), 1763. (UMI No. AAT 3134195)

60

Nugent, K., Bradshaw, M., and Kito, N. (1999). Teacher self-efficacy in new nurse educators. Journal of Professional Nursing, 15(4), 229-237. Olsen, D. and Crawford, L. (1998). A five-year study of junior faulty expectations about their work. The Review of Higher Education, 22.1, 39-54. Porter, L.W., and Steers, R.M. (1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 151-176. Premack, S.L., and Wanous, J.P. (1985). A meta-analysis of realistic job review experiments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 706-719. Pruitt-Logan, A. and Gaff, J. (1999). Preparing Future Faculty to Focus on Diversity. Diversity Digest, 4(1). Richlin, L. (1991). Preparing future faculty: Meeting the need for teacher-scholars by enlarging the view of scholarship in Ph.D. programs. Ph.D. dissertation, The Claremont Graduate University, United States California. Retrieved September 22, 2007, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. AAT 9135384). The Preparing Future Faculty National Office. (2008, February 4). Retrieved February 4, 2008, from http://www.preparing-faculty.org/ Tice, S.L. (1999). Preparing the professoriate of the future: An assessment case study (Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60 (4), 1047. (UMI No. AAT 9925981) Tomlinson, C. A., and Eidson, C. C. (2003). Differentiation in practice: A resource guide for differentiating curriculum, grades 5-9. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Trochim, M. K. (2002). Convergent and discriminant validity. Retrieved September 20, 2009, from http://www.trochim.omni.cornell.edu/kb/convdisc.htm Tschannen-Moran, M., and Hoy, A.W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805. Vroom, V. H. (1995). Work and motivation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Walker, G.E., Golde, C.M., Jones, L., Bueschel, A.C., and Hutchings, P. (2008). The formation of scholars: Rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first century. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2004). Essays on teaching excellence: Toward the best in the academy. The Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education, 15(7). Retrieved online 12/17/07 at http://gozips.uakron.edu/~mcgurk/number7.htm.

61

APPENDIX A LETTER OF INTRODUCTION and INVITATION TO UNIVERSITIES TO PARTICIPATE IN STUDY Temika M. Simmons, M.Ed. XXX Main St. USA Main Street, USA XXXXX 202-492-4123 Dr. Program Director USA State University Graduate College Preparing Future Faculty Program (999) 123-4567 (office) programdirector@usastate.edu Dear Dr Program Director: My name is Temika M. Simmons and I am a doctoral student in educational psychology at Howard University in Washington, DC (Faculty Advisor: Constance M. Ellison, Ph.D.). My dissertation research examines the impact of Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) programs on professional identity, career expectations, and teaching efficacy. I would like to invite you and the Preparing Future Faculty students on your campus to participate in my research study. I am conducting a 15-20 minute, audio-tape recorded, telephone interview of PFF program directors in order to build a profile for each school that includes programmatic missions, goals, objectives, activities, targeted groups, source(s) of financial support/rewards, etc. Additionally, I am issuing a brief online survey to current PFF students. If you would be willing to participate in this study by completing the telephone interview and encouraging your PFF fellows to complete the online survey, please contact me by phone or email with questions, comments, or concerns. Thank you for your assistance in furthering PFF research. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Temika M. Simmons, M.Ed. Doctoral Candidate Howard University Graduate School temikamichael@yahoo.com or tmichael@howard.edu

62

APPENDIX B FOLLOW-UP EMAIL PARTICIPANT PACKET Dr. [Program Director], Thank you for your interest in my research study. Again, the research examines the impact of Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) programs on professional identity, career expectations, and teaching efficacy. Please find attached an IRB consent form. If you agree to participate in this study, review this form and return it me via fax (999-999-9999), postal mail (XXX Main Street USA), or email (temikamichael@yahoo.com) prior to our audio-tape recorded telephone interview. In addition to participating in a telephone interview, you will be asked to forward an email with a link to the online survey of the Preparing Future Faculty Professional Identity Development Survey (PFF-PIDS) to your students for completion. The dates below are available dates and times for your interview. Please let me know which is best for you. The interview will take 15-20 minutes. February 11,12,13,18,19,10 at 10am or 3pm (CST).

Given the dearth of research conducted on Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) programs with regard to professional identity development, your response is critical for gaining a better understanding of how PFF activities may be enhanced for improved faculty careers. Feel free to contact me at temikamichael@yahoo.com or (202) 492-4123 or my research advisor, Dr. Constance M. Ellison (cellison@howard.edu or 202-806-7340) for additional information. Temika M. Simmons, M.Ed Doctoral Candidate Howard University temikamichael@yahoo.com 202-492-4123

63

APPENDIX C EMAIL INVITATION TO PFF STUDENTS

Hi! My name is Temika M. Simmons and I am a doctoral candidate in Educational Psychology at Howard University in Washington, DC (Faculty Advisor: Constance M. Ellison, Ph.D.). This letter is a request for your participation in my dissertation research examining the impact of Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) programs on professional identity, career expectations, and teaching efficacy. You are receiving this email because you take courses at/participate in the faculty development program at your institution. The survey is completely anonymous and only takes a few moments to complete. I would really appreciate any help you can provide. You may access the survey at the following link. http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=MjrEXCobXdNZprpMQ_2b_2fbOw_3d_3d Thanks in advance, Temika M. Simmons Doctoral Candidate in Educational Psychology Howard University temikamichael@yahoo.com or tmichael@howard.edu 202-492-4123

64

APPENDIX D PREPARING FUTURE FACULTY PROFESSIONAL IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT SURVEY (PFF-PIDS)

IRB#: (IRB-08-GSAS79) Preamble For Investigative Procedures Howard University Washington, DC 20059 This is an investigation in the department of Human Development and Psychoeducational Studies at Howard University. This study is being conducted by Constance Ellison, PhD (faculty advisor) and Temika M. Simmons, a doctoral candidate in Educational Psychology. You will be asked to complete one (1) questionnaire, the Preparing Future Faculty - Professional Identity Development Survey, which requires 15-20 minutes to complete. This is an online questionnaire that contains a number of questions regarding your participation in the Preparing Future Faculty program on your campus. We would like for you to read each statement and then answer a number of follow-up questions for each statement. The benefit to you for participating in this study is that you may learn more about yourself and better understand your involvement in the Preparing Future Faculty program. We do not anticipate any psychological risks or discomforts as a result of your participation in this study aside from use of your personal time as a possible inconvenience. The results of this research will be useful to program directors and administrators of faculty development programs nationwide. Procedures for maintaining confidentiality are as follows: Individual results will be pooled with group results. No identifying information such as name, social security number, student identification number, specific birth data, telephone number, address, etc., is required. You may withdraw from this study at any time without jeopardizing your status in the Preparing Future Faculty program and/or its administrators on your campus or nationally. Your participation in this online survey is completely voluntary and you may discontinue the survey at any time. Participants should be 18 years of age or older and in good health. If you are younger than 18, please exit this survey or contact the investigator immediately. If you would like any further information about this study, please contact Constance Ellison, PhD (PI/faculty advisor) at 202-806-6015 or Temika M. Simmons (doctoral candidate) at 202-492-4123. You may also call the Howard University Institutional Review Board at 202-806-4759 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, if you would like to discuss this study with someone other than the investigators. If you give your consent to participate, please click next to begin the study.

NEXT

65

Gender: M____ F____ Year in Academic Program:

____ Masters ____Postdoc ____ Doctoral Year One ____ Doctoral Year Two ____ Doctoral Year Three ____Doctoral Year Four ____Doctoral Year Five

Year in PFF:
____ 1st semester ____2nd semester ____dont know ____ 3rd semester ____ 4th semester ____Other (please specify) ___________________

Academic Major: _________________________________________ Home Town (City & State):_________________________________ Age:

____ 18 25 ____ 26 33 ____ 34 41 ____ 42+

Ethnicity:
____ African American ____ Asian ____ Caucasian ____Latino ____Other (please specify) _______________________

Preferred Career Choice ____Academic (teaching)

_____Academic (administrative _____Industry _____Government _____Non-profit _____Other _____Not Sure

Why did you sign up for participation in the preparing future faculty program on your campus?:
____ Participation is required for a fellowship/scholarship that I receive ____ Participation is required in my program ____ My advisor/faculty member strongly suggested it ____ I was curious about faculty careers ____ I want to be a professor, so I sought out additional training ____ I was hoping to find some direction in choosing a career ____ other (please specify)___________________________________________________________________

66

How much experience do you have teaching at the following levels?:

Graduate School ____ 1 semester ____ 1 year ____ 2 years ____ 3+ years Undergraduate School ____ 1 semester ____ 1 year ____ 2 years ____ 3+ years K-12 ____ 1 semester ____ 1 year ____ 2 years ____ 3 + years

Outside of PFF, have you received formal professional development training in teaching and/or learning?
____Yes ____ No

Are you currently pursuing, or plan to pursue, a certificate in - or related to - university teaching/faculty development while in graduate school?
____Yes ____ No

Would you recommend the PFF program to other students? ____ Yes ____ No Please rate your level of interest in the following: Your interest in faculty jobs before becoming involved in PFF
Very Interested Interested Somewhat Interested Not Interested

Your interest in faculty jobs after becoming involved in PFF

Very Interested Interested Somewhat Interested Not Interested

67

Please rate your level of agreement with the statements below by indicating the following:
Strongly Agree 1. PFF makes my graduate school experience more comfortable 2. I am comfortable teaching in the classroom 3. Intellectually, I can handle the work of being a professor 4. I feel comfortable preparing for a faculty job interview 5. I feel confident when creating, grading, and lecturing course material 6. I have learned how to balance an academic career and family life 7. I feel intellectually overwhelmed by the amount and/or variety of work that professors have to do 8. Teaching is a rewarding investment of my time 9. I have what it takes to be a good professor 10. I have devised a plan to manage multiple commitments to teaching, research and service prior to tenure Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

Please rate your level of agreement with the statements below by indicating the following:
Strongly Agree 11. I am an effective instructor 12. I dress professionally more often as a result of my involvement in PFF 13. I have what it takes to attain tenure at the type of institution where I would like to teach 14. When teaching, I purposely change my style of dress to appear more like a professor than a student 15. Usually, I independently pursue most of the faculty roles and responsibilities introduced by PFF (i.e., conference presentations, service projects, teaching, grant writing, publishing, mentoring students, etc.) without prompting from the program, my advisor, or other faculty 16. I know how to dress to look like a "professor" 17. My students usually improve when I exert a little more effort as an instructor 18. Academe is at the core of my plans for my professional career 19. I know how to mentor and advise students 20. I can identify challenges to student learning Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

68

Please rate your level of agreement with the statements below by indicating the following:
Strongly Agree 21. Most times, I generally feel more like a professional than a student 22. My curriculum vita (CV)is competitive 23. I know how to remedy most classroom issues 24. I will feel like a professor when I get my Ph.D. 25. I know what professional conferences are important for my field 26. I help my students reach their academic goals 27. I will feel like a professor when I get my first "real" job (i.e., academic appointment) 28. I know where to find grant funding for my research 29. I have a positive impact on student learning 30. I look for ways to apply my research to community improvement or university service projects Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

Please feel free to add any additional questions, comments, concerns, suggestions regarding your experiences and training with PFF. Thank you for completing this survey!

69

APPENDIX E INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR PROGRAM DIRECTORS SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW Interviewee Name, Interviewee Institution
For: Doctoral research project (IRB-08-GSAS79) - The Preparing Future Faculty Program (PFF): Examining Relationships between Professional Identity, Teaching Efficacy, and Career Expectations Date/Time: Day, Date, Time Consent: Received via fax/mail/postal mail on Date Interviewer: Temika Simmons, doctoral student, Howard University Interviewee: Name, Title, Phone, Email PFF Website: program weblink

Oral interview via telephone; conversation tape recorded by interviewer

1. Introductions (materials needed: interview protocol, tape recorder, speaker phone, copy of the interview consent form, paper and pen/pencil, laptop/computer set to the university's PFF webpage)

a. Good Morning/Afternoon Dr. [professor name]. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this brief interview for my dissertation research entitled, "Professional Identity Development (PFF): Examining relationships between professional identity, career expectations and teaching efficacy". In essence, this interview is designed to help provide me with a better understanding of the context of the PFF activities/training/workshops on your campus. Thank you for sending a signed copy of your consent form. I did receive it [note when]. As you know, you can discontinue this interview at any time or reserve addressing questions to which you may not want to respond. Feel free to stop me and ask questions at any point during the interview. This conversation is being tape recorded. Do you have any questions at this time about your rights as a participant in this project? [If so, address, if not, proceed to the next question]

70

b. I'll start by asking a few basic questions. How long have you been director of PFF on your campus? [Approximately how many students are involved in PFF on your campus? What is their level of study?]

c. To your knowledge, since the original PFF grant award in 1993, has the program on your campus been continuous?

d. Approximately how many students would you say are currently participating in your program? How many students have completed the PFF program on your campus?

e. Do you track your graduates? [If so] How? What are the percentages of those who go on to academic careers vs. those who do not?

f. Do your students receive financial awards or fellowships for participating in PFF?

2. Describe your work with PFF (on your campus and in the movement in general). Would you describe yourself as a mentor to students?

3. Can you describe the difference, if any, that you may notice in the professionalism and career objectives of your students at the beginning vs. the end of PFF training?

4. When planning PFF activities, what is the general walk away feeling you want students to have at the end of session?

71

5. Does your program seek to make students feel part of a community within the program? If so, how?

6. When students become involved in the PFF program on your campus do you notice any changes in the way that they dress or interact with faculty? Do you encourage any changes in students' attire or behavior toward faculty? If so, how, why?

7. Do you feel PFF gives your students an edge in the job market before graduation? How?

8. How would you rate your programs effectiveness in providing students with a realistic look at faculty roles and responsibilities (on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the best)? Teaching? Academic service?

9. What are some of the common faculty roles and/or expectations that take students by surprise? How does the program/students deal with this?

10. Do you have any additional comments or questions?

72

APPENDIX F PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM

73

74

APPENDIX G IRB#: (IRB-08-GSAS79) Preamble For Investigative Procedures Howard University Washington, DC 20059 This is an investigation in the department of Human Development and Psychoeducational Studies at Howard University. This study is being conducted by Constance Ellison, PhD (faculty advisor) and Temika M. Simmons, a doctoral candidate in Educational Psychology. You will be asked to complete one (1) questionnaire, the Preparing Future Faculty - Professional Identity Development Survey, which requires 15-20 minutes to complete. This is an online questionnaire that contains a number of questions regarding your participation in the Preparing Future Faculty program on your campus. We would like for you to read each statement and then answer a number of follow-up questions for each statement. The benefit to you for participating in this study is that you may learn more about yourself and better understand your involvement in the Preparing Future Faculty program. We do not anticipate any psychological risks or discomforts as a result of your participation in this study aside from use of your personal time as a possible inconvenience. The results of this research will be useful to program directors and administrators of faculty development programs nationwide. Procedures for maintaining confidentiality are as follows: Individual results will be pooled with group results. No identifying information such as name, social security number, student identification number, specific birth data, telephone number, address, etc., is required. You may withdraw from this study at any time without jeopardizing your status in the Preparing Future Faculty program and/or its administrators on your campus or nationally. Your participation in this online survey is completely voluntary and you may discontinue the survey at any time. Participants should be 18 years of age or older and in good health. If you are younger than 18, please exit this survey or contact the investigator immediately. If you would like any further information about this study, please contact Constance Ellison, PhD (PI/faculty advisor) at 202-806-6015 or Temika M. Simmons (doctoral candidate) at 202-492-4123. You may also call the Howard University Institutional Review Board at 202806-4759 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, if you would like to discuss this study with someone other than the investigators. If you give your consent to participate, please click next to begin the study. NEXT

75

APPENDIX H RELIABILITY ANALYSIS FOR PFF-PIDS PILOT DATA

Reliability: Total Scale

****** Method 1 (space saver) will be used for this analysis ******

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A) Mean 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24 Q25 Q26 Q27 Q28 Q29 Q30 3.5000 3.6250 3.6875 3.4375 3.6250 2.6875 2.3750 3.6250 3.8750 3.0000 3.6875 2.4375 3.4375 3.4375 3.5625 3.7500 3.3125 3.3750 3.6250 3.5000 3.6250 3.6250 3.3750 3.4375 3.8750 3.4375 3.3750 2.8125 3.7500 3.5000 Std Dev .5164 .5000 .4787 .6292 .5000 .7042 .6191 .6191 .3416 .7303 .4787 .8921 .5123 .7274 .5123 .4472 .6021 .8062 .5000 .5164 .6191 .6191 .5000 .6292 .3416 .5123 .6191 .9106 .4472 .5164 Cases 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0

Statistics for SCALE

N of Mean Variance Std Dev Variables 102.3750 222.2500 14.9081 30

76

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A) Item-total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24 Q25 Q26 Q27 Q28 Q29 Q30 98.8750 98.7500 98.6875 98.9375 98.7500 99.6875 100.0000 98.7500 98.5000 99.3750 98.6875 99.9375 98.9375 98.9375 98.8125 98.6250 99.0625 99.0000 98.7500 98.8750 98.7500 98.7500 99.0000 98.9375 98.5000 98.9375 99.0000 99.5625 98.6250 98.8750 Scale Corrected Variance ItemAlpha if Item Total if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted 209.0500 209.2667 210.0958 205.2625 209.2667 204.0958 210.1333 206.3333 215.8667 203.5833 210.0958 202.4625 209.7958 202.7292 208.9625 211.7167 207.1292 200.6667 209.2667 209.0500 206.3333 206.3333 210.9333 205.2625 215.8667 209.7958 206.0000 197.4625 211.7167 209.0500 .8661 .8802 .8593 .9203 .8802 .8777 .6537 .8733 .6244 .8701 .8593 .7481 .8214 .9168 .8793 .7940 .8516 .9165 .8802 .8661 .8733 .8733 .7620 .9203 .6244 .8214 .8928 .9362 .7940 .8661 .9846 .9846 .9847 .9843 .9846 .9845 .9854 .9845 .9855 .9846 .9847 .9856 .9848 .9843 .9846 .9849 .9846 .9844 .9846 .9846 .9845 .9845 .9850 .9843 .9855 .9848 .9844 .9846 .9849 .9846

Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = Alpha = 16.0 N of Items = 30

.9852

77

Reliability: Professional Identity Development

****** Method 1 (space saver) will be used for this analysis ******

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A) Mean 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Q1 Q3 Q6 Q9 Q12 Q15 Q18 Q21 Q24 Q27 3.4118 3.6471 2.5882 3.7647 2.3529 3.4706 3.2941 3.5294 3.3529 3.2353 Std Dev .6183 .4926 .7952 .5623 .9315 .6243 .8489 .7174 .7019 .8314 Cases 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0

Statistics for SCALE

N of Mean Variance Std Dev Variables 32.6471 40.7426 6.3830 10

Item-total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Q1 Q3 Q6 Q9 Q12 Q15 Q18 Q21 Q24 Q27 29.2353 29.0000 30.0588 28.8824 30.2941 29.1765 29.3529 29.1176 29.2941 29.4118 Scale Corrected Variance ItemAlpha if Item Total if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted 33.9412 35.6250 31.9338 35.3603 32.0956 33.7794 31.4926 32.7353 32.7206 31.5074 .8909 .8290 .9098 .7576 .7371 .9059 .8952 .9127 .9377 .9155 .9637 .9669 .9623 .9680 .9714 .9631 .9632 .9623 .9614 .9622

Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = Alpha = 17.0 N of Items = 10

.9679

78

Reliability: Teaching Efficacy

****** Method 1 (space saver) will be used for this analysis ******

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A) Mean 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Q2 Q5 Q8 Q11 Q14 Q17 Q20 Q23 Q26 Q29 3.6250 3.6250 3.6250 3.6875 3.4375 3.3125 3.5000 3.3750 3.4375 3.7500 Std Dev .5000 .5000 .6191 .4787 .7274 .6021 .5164 .5000 .5123 .4472 Cases 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0

Statistics for SCALE

N of Mean Variance Std Dev Variables 35.3750 22.1167 4.7028 10

Item-total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Q2 Q5 Q8 Q11 Q14 Q17 Q20 Q23 Q26 Q29 31.7500 31.7500 31.7500 31.6875 31.9375 32.0625 31.8750 32.0000 31.9375 31.6250 Scale Corrected Variance ItemAlpha if Item Total if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted 18.0667 18.0667 17.4000 18.3625 16.3292 17.6625 18.1167 18.6667 18.3292 18.9167 .8940 .8940 .8389 .8592 .8944 .8085 .8493 .7407 .8035 .7712 .9548 .9548 .9569 .9563 .9559 .9581 .9563 .9603 .9580 .9595

Reliability Coefficients

79

N of Cases = Alpha =

16.0

N of Items = 10

.9612

Reliability: Career Expectations

_REQUEST 38 ****** Method 1 (space saver) will be used for this analysis ******

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A) Mean 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Q4 Q7 Q10 Q13 Q16 Q19 Q22 Q25 Q28 Q30 3.2941 2.2941 2.8824 3.3529 3.6471 3.5882 3.5294 3.8235 2.7059 3.4118 Std Dev .8489 .6860 .8575 .6063 .6063 .5073 .7174 .3930 .9852 .6183 Cases 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0

Statistics for SCALE

N of Mean Variance Std Dev Variables 32.5294 37.2647 6.1045 10

Item-total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Q4 Q7 Q10 Q13 Q16 Q19 Q22 Q25 Q28 Q30 29.2353 30.2353 29.6471 29.1765 28.8824 28.9412 29.0000 28.7059 29.8235 29.1176 Scale Corrected Variance ItemAlpha if Item Total if Item Deleted Correlation Deleted 28.1912 31.0662 28.1176 31.0294 31.1103 32.3088 29.8750 33.8456 26.7794 30.7353 .9266 .7490 .9250 .8686 .8555 .8147 .8766 .7140 .9331 .8966 .9566 .9631 .9567 .9592 .9596 .9619 .9583 .9659 .9582 .9581

80

Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = Alpha = 17.0 N of Items = 10

.9638

81