Responses to New Program Review (NPR) of the Stage 2 Feasibility Study:
PhD in Educational Neuroscience: 12/11/2012
Thank you for your recommendations, comments, and questions from the NPR
Committee. We will address them below and send them back to you and to the
Council on Graduate Education.
I.
Justification for the program:

Yes, we agree with your recommendation to orient the PhD program as a
cooperative agreement between Gallaudet University and National Science
Foundation aimed at providing an opportunity to build Gallaudet’s
reputation as a center of research on bilingual teaching and learning. We
have made that change in the proposal and removed the line that NSF
expects this program to materialize and Gallaudet University “promised it to
VL2.”

Thank you, we added that line to the justification of having that program
because “It puts Gallaudet University on the map,” and with it brings
additional benefits such as research funding and attracting more students to
Gallaudet University. We will aslo add that additional benefits to the
resource section in the CGE proposal and explain how it may offset the costs
of the program.

We dropped the comment that students may get MA along the way to PhD in
Educational Neuroscience.
II.
External Viability of the Program (demand)

We have added the line that this is the ONLY PhD program that focuses on
visual learners, deaf and hearing, and it broadens the appeal of the program
in the justification section of CGE proposal.

We added these information from 2009 Survey of Neuroscience Graduate,
Postdoctoral, & Undergradate Programs (Stricker, 2009) to the proposal.
The survey of Neuroscience graduate, postdoctoral, and undergraduate programs
was sent out by Stricker in 2009 and the responses were obtained from 114 of the
134 graduate training programs that were Society for Neuroscience members. This
is the result of the survey:
 The mean number of graduate students per program has increased from 12
in 1986 to 38 in 2009.
 The mean number of PhD degrees in neuroscience awarded annually per
program was 5.0, while the mean time to degree was 5.6 years.

Only 2% of pre-doctoral trainees leave the program annually without
obtaining a PhD degree. 70% new graduates pursue further research training
in postdoctoral positions.

Ninety-five percent of postdoctoral trainees in the neural science have a PhD
degree. Postdoctoral trainees usually leave their position to accept a faculty
position or to pursue further training. Very few are employed outside the
field or are not employed at all.
There is an opportunity for Gallaudet University to increase the number of diversity
in this field with Deaf/Hard of Hearing students, women, or of racial or ethic
minority.
 Based on the survey findings, the US racial and ethnic minorities represent
23% of postdoctoral trainees, and 18% of postdoctoral trainees, but only
13% of tenure-stream faculty members and 14% of non-tenure-stream
faculty members. Pre-doctoral students.

The 2009 survey has concluded that very, very few scientists with doctoral
or postdoctoral training in neuroscience have been unable to find
employment.

Based on the 2009 Survey of Neuroscience Graduate, Postdoctoral, &
Undergraduate Programs, Stricker concluded that “Neuroscience is a very
attractive discipline. It is unusually multidisciplinary in nature. Increased
recognition and appreciation of neuroscience has been promoted during the
past 25 years by such developments as the ‘decade of the brain’, the award of
Noel prizes to neuroscientists, and conspicuous progress in the diagnosis and
treatment of various diseases. These and other developments have attracted
a steady increase in the number of graduate students being trained in the
neural sciences. Increased recognition and appreciation of the discipline also
is reflected in the likelihood that graduate students trained in the neural
sciences will receive their degree in neuroscience or neurobiology rather
than in some other discipline, as was true 25 years ago.”

We added the note that there are other PhD programs on campus that are
unable to accept all applicants to their programs (Clinical Psych, Aud HSLS,
etc.). This program may be an attractive alternative for those students.

In answer to the committee’s question about giving preferences to a student
who completed MA program or those who come straight from BA program,
we will evaluate everyone fairly. There will be no preferences given.

In answer to the committee’s question: As a program intended to follow the
trajectory of VL2 in moving away from basic to applied science, what
opportunities would there be for students in the program to do research in
school (educational) settings? To see the influence of educational settings on
learning via neuroscience?
As a brief clarification, while NSF’s funding will diminish in these later years
of the VL2 Center, and while NSF priorities have shifted towards bringing to
fruition research discoveries that have translational impact for society, the
VL2 Center will continue to be rich and vibrant with basic research. In
addition, the VL2 Center and the discipline of Educational Neuroscience are
not one and the same thing. The evolution of the VL2 Center will not directly
dictate and/or change the content of the PhD Program in Educational
Neuroscience. The discipline of Educational Neuroscience, at large, as well as
its content, is rich, and the discipline exists independently of any one
individual Center or institution per se.
In light of the above points, the students in this program will continue to be
devoted to evaluating how research findings may be applied to
contemporary educational priorities and problems, especially involving
schooling and learning in the young deaf visual learner (i.e. PEN 703, PEN
704.) It is indeed an integral part of our Gallaudet PhD program (indeed it is
a core overarching goal of the discipline of Educational Neuroscience, and
hence, our Gallaudet PhD program) that students must consider how the
findings can be translated into practice.
Regarding the lab rotation experience: Students will be conducting basic
science, but after each lab rotation, they will expected to write up a report
and present about what they have learned during their lab experience in the
early fall of that year. This presentation will occur within the formal student
presentation series called “Open Lab/The VL2 Meetings,” which are held
nearly every Friday. They will also have to explain in depth how the research
and findings in the visited lab may be applied to education and/or learning,
and to provide examples.
The actual experience of observing examples of how research has been
applied to educational settings (or the evaluation of research findings in light
of their translational significance) will occur mostly in PEN 801 Guided
Studies: Clerc Center and Two-Way Translation. In PEN 801, pending Clerc
Center's input, the general goal for students in this course is to observe
educators and professionals in an educational setting specifically dedicated
to the education of deaf children. For example, students may discuss
contemporary research findings on, say, early reading, and get feedback from
teachers and school administrators regarding the relevance of such findings
for the young deaf visual learner in their classrooms. Conversely, the student
may solicit views on the type of research that the school/teachers would find
most most helpful for educating the young deaf visual learner. Students may
also study through their readings and discussion the application of research
findings to educational policy making (what impact can research in a lone lab
and/or a lone classroom really have? What does it take to effect educational
policy change?) Students can further attempt to build bridges (through
combined critical analysis of the literature and their field experience) among
(a) what they observed to be challenges in the classroom, (c) the nature of
contemporary research findings relevant to these challenges, and (c) the type
of “next steps” that would be needed to effect educational change. Thus,
through this course, students will embark upon the important conceptual
journey of how we move from the laboratory to the classroom, from the
classroom to the laboratory, and the steps that would be required to bring all
of this knowledge to bear on educational policy innovations. Such analysis
and reflection will be nurtured through many teaching and learning
mechanisms during the term, including student presentations, student
discussions with other students about their related field observations and
experiences, discussions with the course instructor, making weekly vlogs
(which is required of each student), independent library research,
observations and discussions with teachers and school administrators,
discussions with parents, and, where possible, the children, and the final
analysis paper and the presentation of this paper.
Internal Viability of the program:
Regarding the letters of support, we have asked the Departments of Linguistic,
Interpreting, and Education to revise their letters to include their commitment
to full involvement in the program, including advising. We discussed these
further with the committee and clarified the roles of faculty of those who will
serve as primary advisors or on committees. (Attached are the revised letters
from Interpreting department expressing support and commitment towards this
new program. Linguistic and Education Department letters are still in the works.
We will send them to you as soon as we receive them.)
III.
Resources required:
As per your suggestion, in the proposal, we have now clarified what sources will
financially support this PhD program:





Students will be supported with full paid tuition fees through four years by
Graduate School (Retention Fund), and through funds already committed by
Gallaudet to VL2
o Almost all pre-doctoral students receive stipend support, primarily
from university funds according to the 2009 Survey of Neuroscience
Graduate, Postdoctoral, & Undergraduate Programs
Some faculty members designated to teach in this program are not currently
teaching because they don’t have courses to teach.
The decision will be made by university administrators on whether the
person designated to be hired as a new faculty person will replace someone
who retires.
Funding could potentially come from a STEM training grant, once the
program is up and running.
We will clarify that it is highly unlikely that we would request additional
federal funds to support this program.
Interdisciplinary-- need letters.
Resources required for dual advisors and wonder if the cooperating Departments
are aware that that is part of their cooperative commitment.
We have discussed the level of involvement among the faculty in PEN program. They
are not obligated to be the Primary advisor but may serve on committee for exams.
This is the chart that the representatives on the committee shared with their
departments. (See next page).
Letters from Education and Linguistic Departments are pending.
How involved will I be expected to be with PEN?
There are different levels of involvement with PEN, depending on the faculty member. If a faculty
member accepts to be on a student's committee (either as the Primary Advisor or simply to serve
as a committee member) they must accept to be on two committees in a row, the Preliminary
Exam and the Qualifying Exam. After that, the student may ask them to be on their Comps
(and/or PhD proposal defense and PhD Dissertation defense). But the following committee
membership is obligatory and yoked.
 Commitment type 1) Preliminary & Qualifying Exams
 Commitment type 2) Comprehensive (free standing)
 Commitment type 3) PhD proposal defense and PhD dissertation defense.
Of course, one individual might end up doing all of the above, should all work out wonderfully
between a primary Advisor and his/her student.
High Level of Involvement
Primary Advisor for a PEN student
 Serve as advisor for Preliminary and Qualifying Exams, and possibly, Comprehensive
Exam
 Serve as chair for Dissertation Proposal Defense and Dissertation Defense
 Meet with Director (Fall, Winter, Spring)
 Meet with students on a regular basis
 Give advice on course selections
 Recommend placements for Laboratory Rotation I & II to the program director
 Evaluate written/oral reports after Laboratory Rotation I & II
PEN Faculty Member
 Teach PEN Courses
Low Level of Involvement
Secondary Advisor for a PEN student
 Serve on evaluation committee (for Preliminary and Qualifying Exams, and possibly
Comprehensive Exam)
 Serve on committee for Dissertation Defense and Dissertation
PEN Committee Member
Meet regularly or on as-needed basis
Screen students applications for admission
Create and revise PEN Handbook