The Doctoral Portfolio: Centerpiece of a Comprehensive System of Evaluation

Abstract

The authors describe the process used to revise a traditional doctoral student evaluation system from one that consisted of written comprehensive and final oral examinations to one that features portfolio development. Student competence. expected student outcomes in each competency area. procedures for portfolio development. and documents and procedures for faculty review of the portfolios are described. Recommendations for implementing such a system and implications for counselor education programs are discussed.

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

“…Clearly stating the comprehensive examination purpose and evaluation criteria may help students to perform better and enhance the learning process. Cobia et al (2005) shared how CACREP objectives are made explicit to students before learning and assessment begins in their centerpiece evaluation. Rubrics, similar to the one Loughead (1997) created with the purpose of assessing both lower and higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy, can be one mean to outline expectations and grading procedures.…”

“…Rubrics, similar to the one Loughead (1997) created with the purpose of assessing both lower and higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy, can be one mean to outline expectations and grading procedures. Burch and Peterson (1983) and Cobia et al (2005) recommend creating a comprehensive examination committee consisting of faculty members and doctoral students to re-evaluate their purpose and goal in counselor education to make expectations more clear to both faculty and students. After deciding on a purpose, Peterson et al (1992) As the accreditation standards evolve and change, it is important for the purpose of the comprehensive examination to reflect the current focus of programs.…”

“…The philosophical underpinnings of the comprehensive examination have changed over the decades, ranging from a need for students to publically distinguish themselves as future educators (Jones, 1933), to a rite of passage (Molbert, 1960), to facilitating cognitive complexity (Loughead, 1997), to preparing students for future scholarship (Ponder et al, 2004), and program evaluation (Cobia et al, 2005). Though prominent in higher education, Cobia et al (2005) question if the historical purposes and formats of the comprehensive examination are consistent with current expectations and training in doctoral counseling programs, particularly in light of the shift within higher education toward outcome-based education (OBE), where the focus of curriculum and accreditation is on measuring and documenting student learning (CACREP, 2015;CHEA, 2010).…”

“…Though prominent in higher education, Cobia et al (2005) question if the historical purposes and formats of the comprehensive examination are consistent with current expectations and training in doctoral counseling programs, particularly in light of the shift within higher education toward outcome-based education (OBE), where the focus of curriculum and accreditation is on measuring and documenting student learning (CACREP, 2015;CHEA, 2010). As part of the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs' (CACREP) Assessment Phase (CACREP, 2015), programs are looking for a systemic approach to program evaluation and student learning outcomes.…”

“…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...…”