Curriculum with Assessment OR Assessment with Curriculum?

[econteacher]

Hi all. I've been browsing/lurking for a number of weeks, and finally decided to post my question.

I've just recently moved to New York to do exciting work in financial literacy/economic education for a nonprofit, and one of the delightful perks of my job (besides it being a dream come true!) is that I'll have institutional  support to pursue additional schooling; support that is both professional (this organization encourages academic pursuits by employees) and financial (a generous tuition remediation package).

I'm torn between studying two different fields at the PhD level, and would appreciate input from those with more experience in the whole grad school/PhD process.

I don't plan on starting until 2018 at the earliest, in part because I want to get more acclimated at my job, and in part because depending on the path I choose I may need to prepare in different ways. I would be doing either of these programs part-time.

In short, I'm torn between two paths. Fork one is focusing my PhD on teaching/curriculum with a subfocus/area of interest on assessment (how teachers use assessment in the classroom, role of formative assessments in learning, measuring higher order thinking skills in social studies classrooms using assessments, etc). Fork two is focusing my PhD on assessment/psychometrics with a subfocus on what that looks like in the classroom (those same topics, but maybe heavier on the quant). 

I will readily concede that those are not fleshed out topics for a PhD, and I understand that (I'm early in the process), but I guess I'm looking for guidance on whether my focus should be more on the classroom with a smattering of assessment/psychometrics, or focus more on the psychometrics/assessment with a smattering of classroom. I guess I see the teaching/curriclum PhD as more "applied" while the assessment/psychometric PhD as being more "research" based, but no matter which way I go I'd like to build a program of study that's fairly balanced. But feedback from those in this forum would be useful. Is one more recognized than the other? Do you see any barriers for to study if I go one fork vs the other? Is either/or of these feasible?

If I go the curriculum/teaching route, I would imagine that I am a fairly competitive candidate and would just need to study for GRE and get all my ducks in a row, etc. If I go the assessment/psychometrics route, I'll probably need to spend a little time beefing up my math and learning some basic statistical modeling. I'm good in math, and have done some psychometric work in my career, but I'd like to be a little more math confident before applying.

A little about my background below may help as well.

Degrees

• BS: Double major in Economics and Political Science
• MAT: Secondary Education in Social Studies

Experience

• 6 years of high school teaching, Fulbright-Hays Award Winner, numerous lesson plan and curriculum publications for national and international institutions
• 2 years in a state department of education in social studies curriculum and assessment (including lots of basic psychometric work building a high stakes standardized test)

Future Goals

I'm content right now where I am with my career. I feel that either "fork" will help me in my current position, whether it's on the curriculum side or the assessment side; I do a little of both here. Long term I could see myself maybe teaching social studies methods at a university level. I'm definitely interested in researching assessment in the classroom, and ultimately I'd like to help think of new ways to do high quality assessment at a classroom level. I'm just wrestling right now with the best way to achieve that goal.

Sorry if this is too long, and thanks for any help you can provide!

 

[ZeChocMoose]

I am not in your subfield for education so I can't really comment on which is better curriculum or assessment for long term career prospects - but I can say that trying to attend a PhD part-time while hoping to secure a tenure track job post graduation is fairly difficult.  Mostly because part-time students don't get enough research mentorship and corresponding publications during the PhD to make them that competitive when they come out since they are working their job instead of being research assistants for their professors.  All the people that I know who have successfully attended education PhDs part-time stay in non-academic jobs - administration, education government or non-profits, policy research centers, etc.  

It is also important to choose a program that is welcoming and accommodating to part-time students.  My master's program had a good portion of part-time graduate students, but some required classes were offered during the day which were really difficult for some of the part-time students to work out especially if they had bosses or offices that couldn't accommodate them being away for 3 hrs a day.

[econteacher]

Thanks for responding!

I'll say that all of the programs I'm looking at welcome part-timers, otherwise I would not have begun this process. They all have evening classes and are designed for teachers to do, so classes are at times like 5:15 and 6:30.

As for post-PhD prospects, I'm not necessarily looking to enter academia (I'm perfectly content at my current position), although it's something I could see myself wanting later on. And if I did, I'm not sure that the R1-type lifestyle is even for me; I'd much prefer a campus more focused on teaching than research. 

I should mention that even though I'd be doing the program part-time, my full time position at the nonprofit affords me a great opportunity to do research; I regularly work on curriculum and assessment matters, and have been openly told that research on these matters while employed is not only welcomed but encouraged. So (fortunately) I'll have the means to do high quality research studies in a supported environment even though I'll be part-time in the formal academic program.

[ZeChocMoose]

14 hours ago, econteacher said:

I regularly work on curriculum and assessment matters, and have been openly told that research on these matters while employed is not only welcomed but encouraged. So (fortunately) I'll have the means to do high quality research studies in a supported environment even though I'll be part-time in the formal academic program.

That is great news that your current place is so supportive of independent research.  It seems fairly uncommon in my experience unless it is explicitly negotiated in the job offer stage.  Will they allow you to publish the research in journals?  I know that has been a sticking point for some of my colleagues - usually the ones who work for the federal govt. 

[econteacher]

8 hours ago, ZeChocMoose said:

That is great news that your current place is so supportive of independent research.  It seems fairly uncommon in my experience unless it is explicitly negotiated in the job offer stage.  Will they allow you to publish the research in journals?  I know that has been a sticking point for some of my colleagues - usually the ones who work for the federal govt. 

Thank you! I'm very very fortunate. I'm trying to keep my organization and such fairly anonymous, but I'll just say that we are a nonprofit institution that values research. Indeed, many employees come here explicitly to publish and do research prior to pursuing PhD level work at R1 universities. My division is in the education office, and while that's not necessarily how things normally work  in my division, the option is available to me. In fact, my boss is actually a professor at an institution, and would actually be a potential professor of interest for me if I chose his school, or at least could give me a real good letter of rec if I go elsewhere (that decision sort of depends which "fork in the road" I take, curriculum or assessment).

One of the reasons I chose to move and take this new position is because of this intellectual environment.

[socsciguy31]

Hey, econteacher:

So this is tough to answer for a few reasons. Truthfully, both are very feasible, so it really depends on what you want to do and your particular interests. With that said, here is my take. A psychometrics/measurement program (in my experience) is going to focus much more heavily on the methods/statistics side of things and, as a result, pushes classroom assessment and some of the topics you've expressed interest in (e.g., how teachers use assessments in the classroom, teacher-set criteria) a bit to the wayside. The aim of such programs (generally speaking) is to develop students' knowledge and competence in the understanding and application of specialized statistical models and analyses (and often psychometricians are quite 'removed' from the classroom, for better or worse). Thus the curriculum may be more regimented, as they want you to take certain coursework and ensure that you meet minimum competency requirements in certain technical areas. Not saying you won't explore classroom assessment or even take a course or two on classroom assessment and other areas, but in my experience it really isn't as much of a focus (I've taken one such course, and again classroom assessment is different and can be quite non-statistical). Psychometrics is more suited for large-scale testing and assessment so this instead tends to take precedent. But then again, there are electives to help you balance things out! But the focus here is more on statistics and the analysis of data, usually larger data sets arising from large-scale testing or observational studies.

Although I do not know much about Curriculum and Instruction, these students at my school have much more flexibility when it comes to designing their program of study and many of them often take a lot of the stats/measurement courses, developing a sort of minor in applied stats along the way. I mean both options can you give you a nice blend, given you use your electives wisely, but C&I in my experience gives students much more flexibility in their course selection.

In terms of prep, you are prepped for both, although some more math and stats training wouldn't hurt if going the measurement route. The reason I say you are prepped for both is because you can boost your math/stats skills in grad school, so don't worry too much if you don't have a deep math background, a lot of students don't upon entering (as they recognize that many are entering from social science backgrounds). But be ready to read and brush up because you will need to learn it and learn it well. You did mention that you have some time before entering, so I would recommend at least taking some coursework in maths or stats to make yourself more competitive and better prepared (again if going into psychometrics).

In terms of fit, I think you are well suited for both, even the measurement program; you would just have to express your interests and make a compelling case for why such specialized training (measurement/psychometrics) would be beneficial to you all the while making sure that your research interests align with those of the faculty at your school of interest. If you are interested in the theory underlying psychological measurement and test construction as well as data analysis and statistical methods, then measurement is a great fit. If your focus is more at the classroom level and on instruction and test assembly/administration, well then you may want to pursue other options and go a bit more blended. I would say examine individual programs along with associated faculty research interests and look for fit and flexibility in the program of study. Both are recognized and are great areas of study.

I just want to close this by saying that you and only you will know the best decision for you. I hope I have provided at least a bit of clarity.

Edited August 27, 2016 by socsciguy31

[lapril]

Hi @econteacher

You and I are in a very similar situation. I've taught middle school for 5 years, albeit science/math, and I'm currently working as a curriculum coordinator. I'm planning on applying to a PhD position next year as well. The only reason I'm pursuing this now is because A) I'm currently conducting research in my job and B ) I work for the university and have tuition remission  I plan on being part-time as well. I think the fact that you would be able to conduct research while working your full time job would be incredibly helpful. It's what I plan on doing. Right now I'm preparing by taking one of the required PhD courses as a non-degree student. Luckily, the professor who most closely matches my interests is teaching the course! I would recommend doing the same. I'm only applying to two schools because my husband is tied down to his job, and I absolutely CANNOT pay for this PhD. It has to be fully funded so my options are limited.

I'm not really sure of which focus would be better suited for you. I would focus on the one that is most in line with your full time employment. 

I'd love for us to keep in touch!

Edited August 27, 2016 by lapril

[lapril]

@econteacher - What schools are you looking at?

[econteacher]

On 8/27/2016 at 2:01 AM, socsciguy31 said:

Thus the curriculum may be more regimented, as they want you to take certain coursework and ensure that you meet minimum competency requirements in certain technical areas. Not saying you won't explore classroom assessment or even take a course or two on classroom assessment and other areas, but in my experience it really isn't as much of a focus (I've taken one such course, and again classroom assessment is different and can be quite non-statistical). Psychometrics is more suited for large-scale testing and assessment so this instead tends to take precedent. But then again, there are electives to help you balance things out! But the focus here is more on statistics and the analysis of data, usually larger data sets arising from large-scale testing or observational studies.

Although I do not know much about Curriculum and Instruction, these students at my school have much more flexibility when it comes to designing their program of study and many of them often take a lot of the stats/measurement courses, developing a sort of minor in applied stats along the way. I mean both options can you give you a nice blend, given you use your electives wisely, but C&I in my experience gives students much more flexibility in their course selection.

In terms of prep, you are prepped for both, although some more math and stats training wouldn't hurt if going the measurement route. The reason I say you are prepped for both is because you can boost your math/stats skills in grad school, so don't worry too much if you don't have a deep math background, a lot of students don't upon entering (as they recognize that many are entering from social science backgrounds). But be ready to read and brush up because you will need to learn it and learn it well. You did mention that you have some time before entering, so I would recommend at least taking some coursework in maths or stats to make yourself more competitive and better prepared (again if going into psychometrics).

In terms of fit, I think you are well suited for both, even the measurement program; you would just have to express your interests and make a compelling case for why such specialized training (measurement/psychometrics) would be beneficial to you all the while making sure that your research interests align with those of the faculty at your school of interest. If you are interested in the theory underlying psychological measurement and test construction as well as data analysis and statistical methods, then measurement is a great fit. If your focus is more at the classroom level and on instruction and test assembly/administration, well then you may want to pursue other options and go a bit more blended. I would say examine individual programs along with associated faculty research interests and look for fit and flexibility in the program of study. Both are recognized and are great areas of study.

I just want to close this by saying that you and only you will know the best decision for you. I hope I have provided at least a bit of clarity.

This is incredibly helpful. Thank you so much! 

My gut was telling me that given my interests lie more in the classroom, it appears that C&I might be more flexible. That's what I was thinking, but your answer really confirms it for me.

I will definitely continue looking into both, and ultimately it is going to come down to finding professors who share these interests. My early scans of literature for the schools that are immediately feasible (remember, I'm going to be part time and keep my job, so geography is limited) suggests that, as you might expect, most of the assessment programs lack a lot of classroom analysis, while the curriculum/teaching programs have very little assessment study in them. So I think your advice about finding the program that provides flexibility and free time to dabble in other fields will be the key.

[econteacher]

On 8/27/2016 at 3:11 PM, lapril said:

@econteacher - What schools are you looking at?

Right now, I'm looking at CUNY Grad, Teacher's College, and NYU.