University of SouthFlorida
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Graduate Programs Committee (GPC)
Friday, April 14, 2006
Members Present:Candi Ashley, Michael Berson, Darlene Bruner (Chair), Robert Dedrick, Jeannie Kleinhammer-Tramill, Janet Richards, William Young
Members Absent:George Batsche,Jim King
Ex-Officios Present:Carine Feyten
Attendees:Diane Briscoe,Pam Fleege, Rebecca Wilkins
WELCOME
The GPC meeting for April 14, 2006 was called to order by Chair Darlene Bruner on Friday at 9:10 am. Darlene Bruner welcomed Michael Churton’s replacement from Special Education, Jeannie Kleinhamm-Tramill.
MINUTES
Bill Young moved to approve the March minutes, Janet Richards seconded, and the minutes were approved as written.
COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS reports
Pam Fleege, Childhood Education, was present to give some history on their three revised programs submitted and discuss any questions the committee might have.
Childhood Education – changes to existing track – Pam Fleege tabled
Ph.D. in Curr. & Instruction with concentration in Early Childhood Education
George Batsche (who was unable to attend today) reviewed the Ph.D. program and requested that it be tabled until next year. Michael Berson made the motion to table the program, Robert Dedrick seconded and the motion was approved.
Childhood Education – changes to existing track – Pam Fleege to be reviewed & voted on
M.Ed. in Curr. & Instruction with concentration in Early Childhood Education
Curriculum & Authentic Assessment……………………………………………EEC 6204
Early Childhood: Programs & Advanced Curriculum…………………………EEC 6265
Early Childhood: Play & Learning………………………………………………EEC 6269
Early Childhood: Diversity in Home & School………………………………….EEC 6402
Early Childhood: Research Seminar: Issues & Trends………………………....EEC 6672
Early Childhood: Program Development & Administration…………………...EEC 6524
Social Justice in Early Childhood Education…………………………………….EEC 6518
Advocacy & Leadership in Early Childhood Education………………………...EEC 6517
A motion was made to distribute to the entire committee for review and a vote would be taken on May 1st, seconded, and approved.
Childhood Education – changes to existing track – Pam Fleegetabled
M.A. in Early Childhood Education
The Committee suggested this program be tabled because it appeared to be exactly like the M.Ed. A motion to table was made, seconded and the motion passed.
Secondary Education – new concentration – Stephen Thorntonto be reviewed & voted on
M.Ed. in Secondary Education (English Ed, Foreign Lang/ESOL Ed, IT, Math Ed, Science Ed, and Social Science Ed)
Diane Briscoe suggested the department submit a planned program for each specialtyarea. A motion was made to distribute to the entire committee for review and a vote would be taken on May 1st, seconded, and approved.
Secondary Education – new courses – Denisse Thompson to be reviewed & voted on
Problem Solving for Elementary Teachers……………………………………..MAE 6334
Geometry & Measurement for Elementary Teachers…………………………MAE 6335
Algebraic Thinking for Elementary Teachers………………………………….MAE 6339
A motion was made to distribute to the entire committee for review and a vote would be taken on May 1st, seconded, and approved.
Secondary Education – name change – Stephen Thornton
Computers in Education (new name) from Microcomputers in Education
A motion to approve the name change was made, seconded, and approved.
The following is for informational purposes and does not need a vote:
ACHE – certificate revisions – James Eison
Certificate in College Teaching
Educational Leadership – new certificate – Darlene Bruner
Post Master’s Educational Leadership (K-12)
Secondary Education – certificate revision – Elaine Howes
Graduate Certificate in Science Education
Ad Hoc Committee on Qualifying Exams
The Committee, chaired by Dr. Carine Feyten, presented their final report and a discussion was held. Two options were given. Option 1 (default option) will continue to be the three-day, sit down, exam that is centrally administered; and, Option 2 (new option) will allow program faculty to develop an examination specific to their program that follows the criteria set out (see attached). Each program coordinator will submit their exam with signatures from faculty in the program and the department chair. It will be the responsibility of the department to schedule, prepare and proctor the exam.
The Committee made the suggestion to break # 6 of the Doctoral Qualifying Examination Procedures should be made as two points and have “must” replace “should” in # 7. They will read as follows:
- All students who are ready to take the qualifying examinations need to apply to the COEDU graduate studies’ office, and be cleared by that office prior to beginning the exam.
- The student’s major professor must notify the student and the COE Graduate Studies Office in writing of the results of the qualifying exam.
The timeline that was agreed by the committee and GPC was to start implementation in Fall 2007, allowing for one year of transition. During the next 2006-2007 academic year, all current options available in the COEDU for the qualifying examinations will continue to be offered and monitored by the office of Graduate Studies in the college.
Bill Young moved to approve the new procedures, Michael Berson seconded, and the procedures were approved to be taken to College Council.
OLD BUSINESS
- Robert Dedrick and George Batsche are putting together a statement to guide chairs to assist in instructing faculty on doctoral programs.
- Michael Berson, Secondary Education, will be chair for 2006-2007.
Next Meeting Date
The next meeting will be announced.
Adjournment
The meeting will be adjourned after the final voting.
Addendum to the April 14, 2006 Minutes
Members Responding:Candi Ashley; George Batsche, Michael Berson; Darlene Bruner; Robert Dedrick; Janet Richards; William Young
On May 3, 2006, a motion to approve the following new courses went out via electronic mail and the committee approved by acclamation.
Childhood Education – changes to existing track – Pam Fleege
M.Ed. in Curr. & Instruction with concentration in Early Childhood Education
Curriculum & Authentic Assessment……………………………………………EEC 6204
Early Childhood: Programs & Advanced Curriculum…………………………EEC 6265
Early Childhood: Play & Learning………………………………………………EEC 6269
Early Childhood: Diversity in Home & School………………………………….EEC 6402
Early Childhood: Research Seminar: Issues & Trends………………………....EEC 6672
Early Childhood: Program Development & Administration…………………...EEC 6524
Social Justice in Early Childhood Education…………………………………….EEC 6518
Advocacy & Leadership in Early Childhood Education………………………...EEC 6517
Secondary Education – new courses – Denisse Thompson
Problem Solving for Elementary Teachers……………………………………..MAE 6334
Geometry & Measurement for Elementary Teachers…………………………MAE 6335
Algebraic Thinking for Elementary Teachers………………………………….MAE 6339
Adjournment
The meeting is officially adjourned.
COE GPC Ad Hoc Committee on Qualifying Examination Process
Final Report
April 09, 2006
The Committee
Diane Briscoe, Herb Exum, Carine Feyten (Chairperson), Bill Kealy, Jim King, Michael Mills, Tony Onwuegbuzie, Jim Paul, Judith Ponticell, Denisse Thompson, Jim White.
Introduction
This document constitutes the final recommendations of the COE GPC Ad Hoc Committee on the Doctoral Qualifying Examination (QE) Process. This committee was created in the fall of 2004 and given the charge of addressing numerous pernicious issues that have impaired the QE process for many years. It was also intended that the outcome create an improved QE process that would be consistent with USF/COE’s continuing emergence as a top tier research institution.
In order to meet its charge, the Committee first convened to clarify the issues at hand, report on current practices across the College, share comments from doctoral students about their QE experiences, explore shared overarching values of doctoral education, and discuss the role played by the QE process in those contexts. In this and in subsequent meetings, it became clear that a data gathering phase would be of critical importance in meeting the Committee’s charge.
QE policy data were gathered from other institutions; among them Arizona State, Auburn, Boston, Brandeis, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Emory, Georgia State, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, New York, Princeton, Rutgers, Stanford, Syracuse, Texas Christian, & Yale Universities; the Universities of Arizona, California (Berkley, Irvine, Los Angeles) Chicago, Iowa, Massachusetts (Amherst), Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina (Chapel Hill), Texas (Austin), Utah, Virginia, Washington, & Wisconsin (Milwaukee); as well as the State University of New York (Albany, Buffalo.)
Formal research studies and informed articles on doctoral education and the QE process were also consulted. These studies and articles were drawn from such august publications as the Educational Researcher, the Chronicle of High Education, the Journal of Continuing Higher Education, Counseling Psychologist, College Student Journal, and Teaching Sociology.
Through the numerous formal meetings, subgroup work sessions, informal discussions, and data gathering initiatives that took place between fall 2004 and spring 2006, direction and focus began to emerge. A catalyzing product was the formal statement of Guiding Principles for Discussing the Qualifying Examination. This document is attached as Appendix A.
Having thoroughly grounded themselves in the subject, and using the Guiding Principles as a basis, the members of the Committee were able to achieve consensus and to produce the following statement of COE Doctoral Qualifying Examination Policy, which they are pleased to present to GPC. This document should neither be taken lightly nor revised casually. It is the fruit of a daunting amount of scholar time and effort, the like of which cannot be replicated easily. This new Doctoral Qualifying Examination Policy should serve the College well for many years to come.
Doctoral Qualifying Examination Procedures
- The college will offer the integrated qualifying exam (previously called ‘option one’) as the only College-wide option and centrally administer all aspects of this exam, as has been done in the past. Any other options (see # 2) will need to be administered by the department/program.
- Each program will have the opportunity to propose their own qualifying exam procedures provided they submit a clear rationale and outline of the process as outlined on the attached template.
- Each program faculty that wishes to propose, with the endorsement of the department chair, a set of guidelines and procedures for the administration of the doctoral qualifying examination that is specific to their program should submit a proposal that follows the elements of the attached template to the Dean’s Office. The proposal would be reviewed by the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs to ensure that all aspects of the template have been thoroughly addressed and reflect the position of the entire program faculty.
- Once the proposal has been reviewed by the Associate Dean, the program would be free to implement the new plan as early as the semester following the submission of the proposal.
- Students can be given one opportunity to retake the exam with a minimum of 10 weeks between exam administrations and a maximum of one year.
- All students who are ready to take the qualifying examinations need to apply to the COEDU graduate studies’ office, and be cleared by that office prior to beginning the exam.
- The student’s major professor must notify the student and the COE Graduate Studies Office in writing of the results of the qualifying exam.
Template for Proposing Program Specific Qualifying Examination Guidelines and Procedures
Each program faculty that wishes to propose, with the endorsement of the department chair, a set of guidelines and procedures for the administration of the doctoral qualifying examination that is specific to their program should articulate a description for the various components of the exam, both conceptually and logistically. This plan would be communicated to the student(s). The proposal for a doctoral qualifying examination (QE) (which is intended to differ from the standard qualifying examination offered by the College of Education) must align with the ‘guiding principles’ (outlined in appendix A) and address each of the following points:
- Nature and purpose of the QE as envisioned by the program. This could include a position statement on assessment, how the proposed QE fits within the program that is proposing it, and how the program plans to prepare the students to succeed on the QE from a developmental perspective.
- Description of the learner outcomes
- Type/format of the QE questions (profile of the exam)
- Criteria for evaluation of the examination performance
- Procedures in administering the examination: Who will proctor, what dates, what frequency of administration, parameters and guidelines to be followed during the examination, security issues, students’ application for the examination (Note: Applications for all QE must route through the Office of Graduate Studies, Dr. Diane Briscoe, for students’ clearance on their planned program of study. Programs must allow for at least one month of lead time for clearance on the application to take the qualifying exam)
- Stated position on whether and under what conditions exceptions to these procedures would be considered for a specific student and who would approve the exceptions.
- Written Guidelines to be disseminated to the students in the program/department outlining the various elements of the qualifying exams (e.g. elements identified in 1-5)
- Plan of communication to the students
- Stated policy and procedures on retakes when it will deviate from the College of Education stated policy
- Signature of all program faculty indicating that the faculty have discussed the above-mentioned items and agree to adhere to the guidelines as described.
- Signature of the department chair indicating approval of and support for the proposed procedures and conceptual approach to the qualifying examinations.
Appendix A: Guiding Principles for Discussing the Qualifying Examination
Guiding principles for discussing the qualifying examination
- We are committed to the growth and success of our students as emerging scholars. Professors serve as advocates, not adversaries, in guiding and mentoring students to perform well on the QE while upholding rigorous standards of academic performance.
- The QE represents a shared responsibility between teachers and their students. Professors are responsible for informing advisees on the format and general content of the QE; students are responsible for being mentally prepared to successfully complete the examination as well as for meeting administrative requirements and deadlines specified in the Graduate Handbook.
- The nature and substance of the QE neither can nor should be the same for all academic programs in the College of Education. The College respects and reveres the diverse intellectual traditions of its constituent programs. Variations in the QE reflect these disciplinary differences.
- The College of Education has an unwavering commitment to the concept and practice of academic honesty and the QE exemplifies this in all aspects.
- The qualifying examination represents an experience that is greater than the sum of the coursework that precedes it. Hence, the QE is neither a mere repetition of exercises and performances previously encountered in coursework, nor an opportunity to complete advance work on the dissertation.
- The qualifying examination is a summative, not a formative, evaluation. In this sense, the QE is both a gate and a door; it represents a terminal performance where students demonstrate a level of scholastic mastery that allows to begin the task of independent research. At the same time, successful completion of the QE is a rite of passage that heralds a new relationship between mentor and protégé.