First Year Review

This review will be scheduled for no earlier than 18 hours of course credit and no later than 27 hours of course credit from students enrolling in the Early Childhood Program Area. First Reviews are scheduled for the month of October. Before the First Review, students should have completed: (a) 18 hours of coursework with no grade lower than a B; (b) at least one course in research methodology at The University of Texas; (c) at least one course with a Early Childhood Education faculty member; and (d) no more than 3 semester hours taken Credit/No Credit in the initial 18 hours.

Purpose and Procedure

The purpose for this review is to assess the student’s progress in coursework and in ongoing research and teaching activity. At this review, students will talk about their academic interests, their research and teaching experiences thus far, and their goals for the program and the future. Since this is an oral review, we expect students to be able to articulate clearly their purposes, interests, and learning in subject matter. Students should be able to discuss theorists, researchers, ideas, and topics across early childhood education and other coursework areas that have become important in the student’s thinking so far. The faculty will suggest courses and experiences based on the expectations of the program combined with the student’s personal interests. If the student is currently enrolled as a part-time student, we will discuss with her/him a strategic plan for a residency of at least one year. During the semesters leading up to the First Review, students should take research methods coursework and become involved in research activity, such as through working on faculty research projects or undertaking independent studies or directed research under faculty supervision. Students should also seek out ways to gain college teaching experience including, for example, being a teaching assistant for a early childhood education class or teaching a summer course at another college or university.

Portfolio Contents (must be turned in two weeks prior to review)

  • Vita
  • Completed C & I Doctoral Program Review Form
  • Typed-out list of courses and professors enrolled with thus far and those planned for the upcoming semester. For each completed course, provide a brief statement (2-3 sentences) about what you have learned from the course in terms of concepts, methods and field-based knowledge.
  • Statement (2-3 pages) outlining your research interest, current or planned teaching and research experiences, plans for conference presentations, plans for publication and your career goals for post-PhD.
  • A brief oral report on research (3-5 min). The student is to discuss what s/he has learned about any and all aspects of research, for example, from research methods courses, involvement in faculty research projects, or independent studies or directed research under faculty supervision. Discuss as well future coursework and research experiences the student has planned, or those the student will seek out, and how the student expects those to contribute to their learning and development as a researcher. 
  • A brief oral report on teaching (3-5 min). The student is to discuss what her/his experiences and learning from working as a teaching assistant, course instructor, and/or university facilitator. The student is to describe future teaching planned or are seeking out to advance her/his development as a teacher educator and career goals. Include any supplemental materials documenting her/his teaching—for example, copies of syllabi and learning activities/assignments the student has developed or helped to develop and teach.
  • A writing sample from a course

After the First Review, faculty will complete a form on the student’s progress. Students will receive a copy of the form along with recommendations that may include future coursework, research and teaching opportunities or improvements in writing. The form reviews the faculty response to their meeting with the student’s comments and materials. Below is the possible range of responses from the faculty.

Possible Outcomes

  • Continue in program. The faculty will applaud your progress thus far but may also recommend future coursework, research, and teaching activities and experiences that the student will benefit from pursuing.
  • Continue with conditions. The faculty will applaud your areas of progress and make specific recommendations about coursework, research, and teaching experiences the student needs to have in the coming academic year. This statement indicates the student’s progress is adequate but that the faculty have specific advice about the direction of her/his program.

 

*If significant modifications are recommended, students may be required to repeat the First Review after s/he has met the recommendations within a time period specified by the faculty. The faculty will note areas of specific concern about the student’s progress and performance in the program. The Graduate Adviser of the Curriculum and Instruction Department will be notified, and the student will be asked to repeat the First Review after completing the faculty’s recommendations. If the second attempt at First Review is not satisfactory, the faculty may recommend to the Graduate School that student will be terminated from the program.

 

  • Terminate from program. Students not adequately progressing in the program will be recommended for recommended to the graduate school for dismissal. A dismissal recommendation will be exercised with strict adherence to the guidelines of the Graduate School.



Second/Mid-Program Review

This review will be scheduled for no earlier than 33 hours of credit and no later than 45 hours of credit have been completed. Mid-Program reviews are scheduled for the month of October. The student, at this point in their program, should have at least two semesters of coursework remaining. To participate in the Mid-Program Review, the student should have completed at least 33 credit hours of coursework. 

 Leading up to the Mid-Program review, the student should use every opportunity in coursework selection to explore her/his areas of professional interest. That is, start to focus their work so that they can be thinking toward an area of specialization and a dissertation topic. Develop these interests by engaging in independent studies and engaging with faculty members who are doing research of interest to the student (through participating with them in their research projects as well as through doing their own directed research projects that faculty within C&I would supervise).

Purpose and Procedure

The Mid-Program Review allows faculty to monitor, evaluate, and further guide a student’s progress in the doctoral program. During the Mid-Program review, students will discuss with the faculty their coursework, teaching, and research experiences. Both in the portfolio student’s prepare and in the review meeting, faculty will be gathering evidence that students have engaged in research and learning beyond course requirements and have taken steps toward independence as a teacher educator and research scholar. That evidence will be drawn from a range of materials the student is to compile in a portfolio (see below). By the time a student has a Mid-Program Review, the student should have begun to develop a focus for her/his dissertation, and will have opportunity at that meeting to discuss her/his ideas.

Mid-Program Review is the time to show evidence of developing independence as a researcher and scholarly writer. By this point in a student’s doctoral program, we expect them to have engaged in research-related activities, including scholarly writing. These activities will include at least some of the following: (a) contribute to work in a research team, (b) pursue their own ideas for extending a faculty study in which they have been involved, (c) plan and carry out their own study, (d) refine class papers for submission to a journal, (e) submit a proposal to a conference, (f) become familiar with regulations covering Research on Human Subjects. (If you conduct a study, you will need approval.) See http://www.utexas.edu/research/rsc/humanresearch/

Portfolio Contents

  • Vita
  • Completed program of work form
  • Statement of purpose discussing coursework, research, teaching, service and other experiences that have contributed to your learning, thinking, and development thus far as a scholar and teacher educator, and that are advancing the student’s career goals.
  • Research Statement/History. Prepare a written statement in which the student discusses the progression of her/his research experiences since s/he started the program. The statement should address what the student has learned about any and all aspects of research and how her/his ideas have changed as a result of your coursework and research experiences. The statement should provide evidence that the student is thinking beyond coursework and research with faculty and beginning to develop (and plan and pursue) her/his own research interests. The student is to describe and explain her/his thoughts about the topic and methodology for her/his dissertation.
  • Research Materials. In addition to their research statement, students will include documents that display developing independence as a researcher/scholar and writer. We anticipate the student will submit different kinds of documents as evidence of her/his scholarship. For each document, the student is to include a brief description of its importance to her/his growth. This document display may include such evidence as
  • Conference proposals, presentations, and/or papers
  • Manuscripts (research-based or conceptual) submitted for publication or in the preparation phase
  • Published papers (if you have them)
  • IRB proposal under consideration, or accepted
  • Class papers that you have “taken to the next level” (i.e., refined with the help of a faculty member and submitted to a journal)
  • For any published papers, manuscripts, conference proposals or papers on which you are co-author or co-presenter with faculty, the student should explain the nature of her/his involvement and contributions to those pieces of work.

Possible Outcomes

After the Mid-Program Review, the student will receive a letter from the program area faculty advisor, summarizing the response to your materials and the review meeting. A copy of this letter will be kept by the program area advisor and the department graduate coordinator. The range of possible responses from the faculty is described below:

  • Progressing in the program as expected. Continue in program. The faculty will applaud the student’s progress to date and may also make recommendations for courses and specific research experiences that may help the student to prepare for her/his dissertation, and for teaching or other professional experiences that will advance her/his career goals.
  • Progressing in the program adequately but with some modifications recommended. No repeat of the Mid-Program Review required. The faculty will applaud the student’s areas of progress and make specific recommendations about coursework and research experiences the student needs to complete to prepare for the dissertation or teaching or other professional experiences s/he should pursue to advance her/his career goals. This statement indicates that the student’s progress is adequate but that the faculty have specific advice about the direction of your program.
  • Progress in the program is unsatisfactory. Significant modifications recommended that require repeat of the Mid-Program review after completing the specific recommendations within a time period specified by the faculty. The faculty will note areas of specific concern about the student’s progress and performance in the program. The Graduate Adviser of the Curriculum and Instruction Department will be notified, and the student will be asked to repeat the Mid-Program review after completing the faculty’s recommendations. If the second attempt at Mid-Program review is not satisfactory, the faculty may recommend to the Graduate School that the student be terminated from the program. A dismissal recommendation will be exercised with strict adherence to the guidelines of the Graduate School.
  • Terminate from program. Students not adequately progressing in the program will be recommended for recommended to the graduate school for dismissal. A dismissal recommendation will be exercised with strict adherence to the guidelines of the Graduate School.

 


Candidacy Examination

To be admitted for candidacy for the Early Childhood Education Ph.D., students are evaluated by the area faculty through written exams followed by a scheduled oral defense of the written exams.

Purpose

  • To evaluate the student’s understanding of content important to the field of early childhood education;
  • To evaluate the student’s understanding of the processes of research related to the field of early childhood education;
  • To evaluate the student’s preparedness to conduct a dissertation study.

Candidacy Examination Committee Constituency

The Candidacy Examination committee will consist of a chairperson and three other faculty members with the following stipulations.

  • The chair or one of two co-chairs must be from the Early Childhood Program Area.
  • A minimum of two members of the committee must be representative of the Early Childhood Program Area
  • One member of the committee must be from either out of program area or from another department (and may be from another institution).

The Candidacy Examination Committee need not be the student’s Dissertation Committee; however, it is recommended that at least one member of the Candidacy Examination Committee be on the student's Dissertation Committee. 

Components of the Candidacy Examination

The Candidacy Examination for the Early Childhood Education Program Area is divided into two parts. Part 1 is a written specialization exam; and Part 2 is an oral exam that examines students’ understanding of the breadth of the field of education, particularly early childhood education. The Specialization Exam is designed to assess students’ understanding of the field of early childhood education. The oral examination is designed to give the student the opportunity to expand on his/her thinking and give the faculty an opportunity to explore more fully the concepts presented with the student.

Written Examination (Part 1)

The Specialization Exam will be prepared by the student’s Candidacy Examination Committee. Each member of the Committee will submit one question to the designated chair of the student’s committee for a total of four questions. Three of the four questions will come from three pre-determined domains: 1) the significance of the proposed problem of study, 2) the proposed theoretical/conceptual orientation towards investigating that problem/issue and 3) the proposed methodology for investigating and understanding the problem/issue in a new or expanded way. For these three questions, we expect students to draw from theoretical, methodological and conceptual knowledge gained through previous coursework and research experiences. The fourth question will be determined by the Candidacy Examination Committee and connect to the student’s proposed inquiry or interest.

Students will have two weeks to complete the written examination. Because of the time allotted, the paper is expected to be high quality. The examination should be in APA form and free of grammatical errors. Students are prohibited from using an editor or sharing their work with anyone before the due date. The exam should be the student’s work only. Students will receive a day and time the exam is due. All exams must be submitted by email to the graduate coordinator for department of curriculum and instruction.

Oral Defense (Part 2)

The Oral Defense 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. It is expected that the entire written examination serve as the basis for the oral defense.

Scheduling the written exam and oral defense

When a student has completed nearly all of his or her coursework (or during the semester prior to the completion of all course work), the student is ready to schedule the Candidacy Examination. The Candidacy Examination is a month long process. Students typically set an oral defense date with their committee and then schedule the date to receive and submit the written exam after the oral defense date is secured.

The student will receive the Written Specialization Exam for Early Childhood Education question from the Graduate Coordinator. The written examination will not exceed two weeks.

The oral defense should be scheduled with the Candidacy Examination Committee for two weeks after the completed written exam. The Oral Defense will be conducted by the student’s Candidacy Examination Committee.

Scheduling of the oral defense is done with the chairperson and members of the student’s Candidacy Examination Committee. The oral defense date as well as the planned date to receive the written candidacy exam must be communicated to the Graduate Coordinator as soon as an agreed upon date is decided. All scheduling must allow for a minimum of two weeks for the Candidacy Examination Committee to review the student’s written examination.

Procedures

Step 1: When students are ready to begin their candidacy examinations, they should choose the Candidacy Examination Committee which will supervise them through the two parts of the exam. (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 requirements for membership on the Dissertation Committee).

Step 2: When students have secured agreement of four 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.  They should also complete and submit to the Graduate Coordinator  the Program of Work form. The Program of Work form, which follows the guidelines of Early Childhood Education, is to be completed by typing or word processing and should be returned to the Graduate Coordinator before qualifying exams. 

Step 3: The Graduate Coordinator will then send a memo appointing the Candidacy Exam Committee and issuing a call for questions to the chair of the student’s Candidacy Exam Committee, along with a copy of the student’s Program of Work. The Graduate Coordinator will oversee the Comprehensive Examination process.

Evaluating the Candidacy Examinations

The written Candidacy Examination will be read and evaluated by the Candidacy Examination Committee, who will be asked to judge the adequacy of the student’s written answers. The Candidacy Examination Committee will also conduct the oral examination. Any faculty member is welcome to attend any student’s Oral Defense.

Review Criteria

The faculty will make a separate evaluation of performance on the Specialization Exam. Once the student’s Oral Defense is completed, the committee will discuss the student’s performance on the Written Exam and the Oral Defense. The committee will vote whether a student passes, passes with conditions, or fails the candidacy exam.

Decisions

A decision to pass the student on both the Comprehensive and Specialization Exams, 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 exam, 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 Committee Chair then reports results of deliberation to the Graduate Adviser’s office. When the student is recommended for advancement to candidacy, the Curriculum and Instruction Graduate Coordinator will then notify the student of the results and guide the preparation and submission of candidacy papers.


  • No labels

Confluence Documentation | Web Privacy Policy | Web Accessibility