Embedded Traditions, Uneven Reform: The Place of the Comprehensive Exam in Composition and Rhetoric PhD Programs

The Doctoral Comprehensive Examination in Counselor Education: Faculty Members’ Perception of its Purposes

“…Consistent with previous research (Loughead, 1997;Peterson et al, 1992) and regardless of format, the primary purpose found for the comprehensive examination by faculty in doctoral counselor education programs was to assess higher levels of cognitive complexity which is the most salient educational purpose mentioned for doctoral comprehensive examinations across disciplines (Estrem & Lucas, 2003;Ponder et al, 2004).…”

“…Loughead (1997) recommended utilizing Bloom's taxonomy as the primary purpose for designing the comprehensive examination, evaluating, and providing feedback to students to facilitate higher order thinking. Loughead (1997) An extensive review of the literature within counselor education and across disciplines yielded five main purposes for the comprehensive examination: (1) to assess lower levels of cognitive complexity (Anderson et al, 1984;Burch & Peterson, 1983;Khanna & Khanna, 1972;Loughead, 1997;Manus et al, 1992;Peterson et al, 1992;Ponder et al, 2004;Saraf, 1985); (2) to assess higher levels of cognitive complexity (Anderson et al, 1984;Boes, Ullery, Millnner, & Cobia, 1999;Estrem & Lucas, 2003;Fox, 1985;Loughead, 1997;Manus et al, 1992;Peterson et al, 1992;Ponder et al, 2004;Saraf, 1985); (3) to promote a beneficial learning experience (Cobia et al, 2005;Fox, 1985;Furstenberg & Nicholas-Casebolt, 2001;Peterson et al, 1992;Schafer & Giblin, 2008;Thomason et al, 1980); (4) to prepare students for future scholarship (Burch & Peterson, 1983;Cobia et al, 2005;Estrem & Lucas, 2003;Ponder et al, 2004;Thyer, 2003); and (5) to maintain tradition (Anderson et al, 1984;Beck & Becker, 1969;Eisenburg, 1965;McKee et al, 1999;Molbert, 1960;S...…”

Doctoral Comprehensive Exams: Standardization, Customization, and Everywhere in Between

“…They separate those students focused on taking doctoral courses from those primarily working on the dissertation. Implicitly or explicitly, exams may serve a variety of purposes, including: assessing a student's basic skills and abilities; allowing students the opportunity to demonstrate their mastery of the knowledge, literature, and research in a discipline; assessing a student's ability to synthesize salient research literature; testing the ability to conduct research; exposing students to new materials; identifying students deemed unworthy of advancing to the dissertation; and as a rite of passage (Burck & Peterson, 1983;Estrem & Lucas, 2003;Franke & Kahn, 1992;Manus, Bowden, & Dowd 1992;Ponder et al, 2004). Comprehensive examinations are nearly universal across disciplines, including CCJ (Flanagan, 1990).…”

“…Beginning in the later years of the nineteenth century, the dissertation requirement was implemented to further distinguish between the educational experiences and evaluation procedures used for undergraduate and graduate students (Geiger, 1993). 1 In response to growing graduate student enrollments, universities began standardizing doctoral degree programs in the 1930s (Estrem & Lucas, 2003), a process that included standardizing assessment procedures (Geiger, 1993). The resulting progression required that students completed graduate coursework, "passed a comprehensive examination, acquired a reading knowledge of French and German, handed in a satisfactory dissertation, and survived a final oral examination" (Stanford, 1976, p. 244).…”

Assessment of examinations in computer science doctoral education

“…offered three formal exams (Forsythe, 1967), now allows a wide range of options for its faculty to offer doctoral computer science examinations (Stanford University). Estrem and Lucas (2003), in the context of the field of composition and rhetoric, consider the efficacy of the traditional examination approach. In their work, 97% of those programs assessed failed to list assessment criteria, 69% neglected to include evaluation measures, and 39% neglected to state how the exam would be evaluated.…”