Ph.D. Program Review & Qualifying Examination Procedures for Cultural Studies in Education

First Review

Purpose   

1.    to monitor and evaluate the student's progress in the doctoral program;

2.    to evaluate the student’s ability to conceptualize complex issues and to write coherently on research topics of interest;

3.    to advise the student on planning his/her program of study.

Scheduling

The First Review will occur when the student has completed at least 18 hours of graduate credit at The University of Texas at Austin.  Normally this review will occur during the third semester of residence for a full-time student or at the end of two full semesters and a summer session for a full time student.

Transfer students will be reviewed when they have completed at least 18 hours of C&I graduate courses.

Material (see below) should be submitted to the faculty advisor at least two weeks in advance.

Review criteria

The review will be based upon performance in the first 18 hours of graduate work.  The following criteria will be considered:

•  a grade point average of at least 3.0 maintained over the 18 hours.

•  at least one course in research methodology taken during the first 18 hours at The University of Texas (to be ensured by the Program Adviser). 

•  no more than one (1) Credit/No Credit course taken in the initial 18 hours.

Procedures

The First Review will be conducted by all core faculty members in Cultural Studies in Education.

Students are required to present for review a portfolio-in-progress which includes the following:

• A one page personal statement/reflection about their experiences in the program (thus far)

• Examples of written work, e.g., class papers or essays submitted for coursework at UT Austin (at least one and no more than three)

• A proposed plan/rationale for courses to be taken. In addition to the required courses outlined in the Ph.D. Guidelines, a rationale for the proposed courses to be taken in the Area of Specialization is particularly important. Students should submit a completed Program of Work form (POW)

• A one page statement of research interests, how they have changed (or not) and what theories, topics or bodies of research have captured the student’s attention.

• A general timeline for completing all coursework

• A Curriculum Vitae

Decisions

The First Review interview is designed as a “check-in” with the student about their thoughts and ideas concerning their program of study; what she/he has experienced intellectually and the area(s) of interest she/he wishes to pursue. 

However, there is also a decision to be made (by consensus of the subcommittee) as to whether the student is to be recommended for continuation, probation, or termination from the program.

Probation conditions will be specified by the Area faculty on an individual basis.  It is expected that conditions will entail such prescriptions as coursework, independent readings, etc.

Dismissal options will follow the procedures of The Graduate School.

Reporting Procedures

The subcommittee will inform the student of the results of the First Review immediately following the interview.

The Program Adviser will then report results of deliberation to the C & I Graduate Adviser’s office.  Written notification of the Cultural Studies in Education decision will be sent to the doctoral student by the C & I Graduate Office.

Mid-Program Review

Purpose

1.  to monitor and evaluate the student's progress in the doctoral program;

2.  to advise the student on planning his/her program of study geared towards a specific dissertation topic. 

3.  to evaluate progress in the student’s ability to conceptualize complex issues and to write coherently on a research study or topic.

Scheduling Criteria

The Mid-Program Review will be conducted by a subcommittee of two Area faculty members after a student has completed 27 - 36 hours of coursework. 

Research methodology in one area of emphasis (qualitative, quantitative or other) should be completed.  In other words, students should have had experience in an advanced research methodology course.  

The material for review (see below) should be submitted to the faculty advisor two weeks in advance. 

Procedures

The student will present a portfolio which should include the following:

• A one page personal statement/reflection about experiences in the program (thus far)

• Examples of more advanced written work, e.g., class papers or essays submitted for coursework at UT Austin (at least one and no more than three), OR manuscripts presented at conferences, or submitted publishable manuscripts (when available and/or appropriate).

•  A proposed plan/rationale for courses to be taken. In addition to the required courses outlined in the Ph.D. Guidelines, a rationale for the proposed courses to be taken in the Area of Specialization is particularly important.

• A completed Program of Work form (POW)

• A completed C & I Department Doctoral Program Review Form

• A two page statement of research interests, how they have changed (or not) and what theories, topics or bodies of research have captured the student’s attention.

• A general timeline for completing all coursework

• A Curriculum Vitae

The complete Mid-Program portfolio will be reviewed in an interview format consisting of a presentation of the course papers or manuscripts, followed by discussion and questions.  We will also discuss the student’s progress in the program as exemplified by the portfolio as a whole, as well as plans for the Candidacy Examination and remaining coursework.

Review Criteria

The portfolio as a whole should demonstrate growth in writing and conceptualizing diverse frameworks for addressing educational issues.  It should also inform the committee of the student’s range of interests and conceptual abilities as she/he identifies a dissertation topic.

Area faculty will judge the course papers or manuscripts based on a range of criteria, including importance of the question, appropriateness and rigor of the methodology, appropriateness of the literature review, and scholarship of presentation.

Decisions

The Mid-Program Review will result in one of several decisions.

A decision of Pass means the student will be invited to continue work in the program as planned.

A decision of Pass with Conditions means the student will be allowed to continue work in the program as long as certain conditions are met.  The imposition of these conditions is intended to help the student strengthen areas that are of concern to the faculty (e.g., additional research coursework, additional involvement in research projects).

A decision of Fail will carry the recommendation that the student drop from the program or that the student redo the Mid-Program review.  In the case of a recommendation to redo, the student will be given specific suggestions on how to strengthen areas of weakness.  A dismissal recommendation will be exercised with strict adherence to the guidelines of the Graduate School.

Reporting Procedures

Students will be informed by the Area faculty of the results of the Mid-Program Review within one week following the Mid-Program review.

The Cultural Studies in Education faculty will then report results of deliberation to the Graduate Adviser’s office.  The C & I Graduate Office will send written notification of decisions to the student.

Candidacy Examination

Completing an acceptable research prospectus and passing the qualifying written examinations are prerequisites for admission to doctoral candidacy in Cultural Studies in Education in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction.  The qualifying examination should normally be completed by the last semester of coursework in the Ph.D. program and prior to the beginning of dissertation research. 

Purpose

•      to evaluate the student's understanding of the content in his/her area of specialization important to the field of Cultural Studies in Education.

•      to evaluate the student's understanding of the processes of research related to the field of Cultural Studies in Education.

•      to evaluate the student's preparedness to conduct a dissertation study.

Candidacy Examination Committee Constituency

The Qualifying Examination Committee will consist of a chairperson and at least two other faculty members formed within the following guidelines:

•      The chair or one of two co-chairs must be from Cultural Studies in Education. 

•      At least one other member of the committee must be from Cultural Studies in Education.

•       Other members may be from another area in C & I or from another department. However, if there are only three members, all must be from C & I

At least one member of the Qualifying Examination Committee must be retained as a member of the student’s Dissertation Committee.

Components of the Candidacy Examination

As part of qualifying for admission to doctoral candidacy, each student must prepare, and be examined on her/his area of specialization and proposed research in Cultural Studies in Education. The process will occur in three stages: (Part A) submission of a research prospectus to your advisor, (Part B) a written exam based on the prospectus, and (Part C) an oral examination. 

Description of the Candidacy Examination Components

The Prospectus (Part A) will consist of an introduction to the student’s proposed study, a theoretical framework, and a literature review. The prospectus is prepared under the supervision of a prospectus adviser selected by the student.  Upon approval by the advisor, the prospectus is submitted to the C&I graduate coordinator to be kept in the student’s file as a part of the qualifying examination process.                 

The Written Examination (Part B) consists of examination questions. Each member of the committee is responsible for formulating one exam question. These questions should be connected to the student’s project, and should allow the student to demonstrate theoretical competence and competence in the research literature in his or her proposed area of specialization and research. From the time set for the beginning of the written examination, the student will have two weeks to prepare the written exams (see “Scheduling the Written Exams” section below).

 Oral Defense (Part C) is a two-hour oral examination conducted by the student’s Candidacy Examination Committee and open to any additional readers of the examination who have interest in the student’s performance. (See "Evaluating the Candidacy Examinations" below.)  The prospectus (Part A) and the written examination (Part B) will serve as the basis for the oral defense.  

Scheduling the Written Exams (Part B)

Step 1:  Prior to completing the Prospectus (Part A) and beginning the Written Examination (Part B), the student should choose the Candidacy Examination Committee which will supervise them through all three parts (A, B, C).  It is advantageous for the student to consult with members of their committee about their prospectus and to receive input or advice on developing the reading lists. (NOTE:  Because a smooth transition from Candidacy Examination Committee to Dissertation Committee is desirable, the Graduate Adviser recommends that as students choose members for the Candidacy Examination Committee, they should bear in mind the requirements for membership on the Dissertation Committee.) 

Step 2:  When students have secured agreement of faculty members to serve on the Candidacy Examination Committee, they should contact the Graduate Coordinator to let the GC know that they will be taking their exams in the near future and to get the Program of Work form.  The Program of Work form is to be completed by typing and should be returned to the Graduate Coordinator in the Sánchez Education Building no later than three weeks before Part B is to be taken. 

Step 4:  Students must write their exams using an appropriate and consistent format (APA or Chicago style) and return the exam by the two week deadline (day and hour is noted). 

Step 5:  After completing the examination, the student will turn in the question sheet and written exams to the Graduate Coordinator who will duplicate the questions and responses.  A copy of the entire examination will be sent to each Candidacy Examination Committee member and to the student. 

Scheduling the Oral Defense

For the Oral Defense (Part C), it is the student's responsibility to schedule a two-hour block of time on a date agreeable to all members of the Candidacy Committee.  When the date and time are firm, notify the C&I Graduate Coordinator, who will send a written notice of date, time, and place of the Oral Defense to each committee member and to the student (usually at the same time the written examination responses are mailed).

It is advisable to schedule the Oral Defense approximately two or three weeks after Part B.  The lapse of time between Part B and Part C (the Oral Defense) allows the Graduate Coordinator opportunity to duplicate the entire examination and the committee time to review the student’s completed written exams.

Evaluating the Candidacy Examinations

The entire written Candidacy Examination (Parts A and B) will be read and evaluated by the Candidacy Examination Committee, who will be asked to judge its adequacy.  In some cases, the Cultural Studies in Education faculty may ask additional faculty to review the Comprehensive Examination.

In addition, any faculty member is welcome to attend any student’s Oral Defense with permission from the Candidacy Examination Committee Chair.

Decisions

A decision to pass the student on both questions of the written exams (Part B) and the Oral Defense means the student will be allowed to advance to candidacy.

A decision to pass with conditions means the student will be allowed to advance to candidacy as soon as specified conditions are met.  The imposition of these conditions is intended to help the student strengthen possible areas that are of concern to the faculty (e.g., additional research coursework, additional involvement in research projects, additional courses in content areas).  The Candidacy Examination Committee chair is usually responsible for monitoring student work on the conditions set. 

A decision to fail will carry the recommendation that the student be dropped from the program or that the student retake either or both parts of the Candidacy Examination.  In the case of a recommendation to redo, the student will be given specific suggestions on how to strengthen areas of weakness.

Reporting Procedures

A student is told following the Oral Defense whether he or she is being recommended for advancement to candidacy without conditions, advancement with conditions, asked to retake the examination in total or in part, or dropped from the program.  One retake is permitted according to Graduate Studies Committee policy. 

The Candidacy Examination Committee Chair will then report results of deliberation to the C & I Graduate Adviser.  When the student is recommended for advancement to candidacy, the Graduate Studies Committee in C&I votes on the recommendation.  The C & I Graduate Coordinator will then notify the student of the results and guide the preparation and submission of candidacy papers.