Comprehensive Exams
Educational Administration
Purpose of the Comprehensive
Doctoral degree programs in the Educational Administration Program of the Department of LHAE are meant to prepare students to draw on knowledge in policy, leadership, change, and social diversity to contribute to theory and practice in the field of educational administration. The course work should introduce students to basic knowledge and fundamental debates in the key areas listed above. In addition, the faculty acknowledges that there are certain knowledge, skills, and abilities we wish our students to have by the time they are ready to begin their doctoral research. The comprehensive examination should be the student’s opportunity to reflect on what she/he has learned and to demonstrate how her/his knowledge and skills will contribute to her/his own research and practice.
Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities
In particular we are expecting that each student is able to demonstrate reflexivity and engagement with learning in the doctoral program in each of seven areas that we deem to be essential in terms of moving forward to the proposal writing and research stages of her/his program. We want to see that students have the knowledge, skills, and abilities commensurate with this stage in their professional career. The Comprehensive examination relates to students’ knowledge, skills, and abilities across seven key areas: research design, conducting research, analyzing data, communicating research results, knowledge of the broader field of educational administration, knowledge of major theoretical frameworks in the field, and synthesizing existing literature.
Research design (e.g. identification of research problems, understanding how to match appropriate research methodology to research questions, sampling, framing research concepts); This dimension focuses on your ability to utilize scholarship in identifying and articulating social problems that can stimulate research, understand the relationship between problems and research designs, and be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of various potential designs for given problems. The examiners will look for the degree to which the student is able to focus on research problems and discuss them within relevant literature, and look for evidence that the design is informed by theory, a degree of methodological clarity, and conceptually plausible, understandings of how to approach addressing research problems.
Conducting research (e.g. conducting interviews, administering questionnaires, doing archival research). This dimension focuses on your understandings of how to carry out a research design, emphasizing your familiarity with a range of research techniques, knowledge of how to employ these techniques appropriately, and an appreciation for the ways in which these techniques generate particular kinds of data. The examiners will see if the student has an adequate appreciation of the execution of a research design, and appropriate knowledge of some methodological approaches and data collection strategies
Analyzing data (e.g. statistical analysis, coding interview data, discourse analysis). This dimension focuses on your familiarity with multiple approaches to treating data and your ability to recognize the epistemological limitations of these various approaches, as well as the ways in which data may be used to help address original research problems. You must demonstrate a satisfactory grasp of multiple analytic techniques for treating data, and emergent understanding of epistemological considerations for advancing claims to knowledge from alternative analyses.
Communicating research results (e.g. conference presentations, scholarly articles, technical reports). This dimension focuses on your ability to produce scholarly work appropriate for disseminating in written and oral form, and your awareness of processes for communicating findings from inquiry. Examiners look to see if work is generally organized, mostly coherent, logically developed, and understandable. Most work is appropriate for the purposes of communicating and disseminating scholarship.
Knowledge of the broader field of educational administration (e.g. past and current approaches to leadership, policy, and organizations). This dimension focuses on your knowledge of various current themes and established traditions from the field of educational administration, and your understandings of how these trends contribute in distinct ways to contemporary scholarly inquiry in the field. You need to be able to show that perspectives are generally anchored in existing understandings from the broader field of educational administration, and that connections between and among the field’s scholarly concerns are evident.
Knowledge of major theoretical frameworks in the field (e.g. application of social theories to education; how we understand the nature of the educational enterprise). This dimension focuses on your understandings of the meaning and significance of theory, and how theoretical concerns from the field, as well as social theory generally, inform the ways in which administrative and social knowledge is generated. You need to demonstrate that your understandings are informed by theory, and scholarly work is framed using theoretical perspectives from the field and social theory generally.
Synthesizing existing literature (e.g. how to select literature that defines the scope of a field; using existing literature to support a particular argument or point of view). This dimension focuses on your ability to critically review, synthesize, and utilize a wide range of scholarly literature to provide a coherent and focused account of a specific scholarly area, as well as your appreciation for how this account can support related scholarly inquiry. The examiners will look to see the extent to which you present a largely appropriate and defensible selection of mostly relevant literature utilized in framing scholarly discussions and supporting scholarly positions.
Part 1: Preparation for the Examination
1. Students will be asked to produce two separate but related products: a paper (about 10-15 pages) demonstrating their knowledge of one of the four strands of the Educational Administration Program and a portfolio that demonstrates their developing skills in the key areas listed above.
2. The topic for the paper should be determined in consultation with the student’s advisor or supervisor. This should in large part demonstrate the student’s ability to synthesize the literature. The paper should be written in an acceptable scholarly style. The paper is not a public document and will only be given to members of the examining committee.
3. The portfolio should include 5 artifacts that demonstrate that the student has developed knowledge, skills, and abilities in the key areas listed above.. These may include but are not limited to the following:
• documentation from a research project
• a paper or other artifact that shows application of research to a practical problem or issue
• an original research proposal
• a technical report
• a policy paper
• a conference proposal
• a paper or other artifact presented for an audience of peers
• an annotated bibliography
• an evaluation or assessment report
• an instructional unit
• an academic or professional curriculum vita.
It is important that the student focus on the content of the portfolio and the comp paper, and not be distracted by presentation issues. The materials do NOT need to be in colour, or desktop published, or bound professionally. The examiners will be interested in what the student has to say, and not with the superficial presentation quality.
A few examples of portfolios are kept on file for students to review. Students wishing to review a copy should contact your departmental Liaison Officer. These examples should be considered general guides, rather than templates of practice.
4. A brief introduction and a reflection that explains (not simply asserts) the value of the particular artifact in demonstrating the student’s knowledge, skills, and abilities should accompany each artifact in the portfolio. The reflection should put each artifact in context, to provide insights into the value of the learning gained by this artifact. In the case of a co-authored product, the student should clarify her/his contribution to the process in her/his reflection. The portfolio should be made available to the examining committee at least two weeks prior to the exam date
5. Students will be responsible for ensuring copies of their papers are submitted to the Graduate Student Liaison Officer at least two weeks in advance of the examination date. The Liaison Officer will ensure that the examiners receive copies of the papers.
Part 2: Day of the Examination
6. On the day of the examination students will make a short presentation of their paper and respond to questions from the examination committee. Each student will have no more than 30 minutes for her/his presentation and the total examination will last no more than 1.5 hours. The examining committee may ask questions arising from the portfolio and/or the paper. Students should expect to be examnined on any or all of the artifacts, but questions will also include awareness of the broader field. The examinations will not be public. The point of the oral exam is to engage the student in discussions about issues in the field; to this end, students are requested to NOT put their efforts into powerpoint presentations or other materials, but focus on the content of their work, and the understandings they have developed as a result of their studies.
7. There are two possible outcomes of the examination: a) the student passes, which means she/he has demonstrated knowledge, skills, and abilities in all of the seven areas outlined above; or b) the student fails, which means that she/he has not demonstrated knowledge, skills, and abilities in two or more areas. In the case of failure, students are allowed one retake of the comprehensive examination.
8. Students will be informed of their status (pass or fail) at the end of the exam. Examiners will submit a written report on the comprehensive to the Department Chair, with copies to the student and supervisor/advisor, in a timely fashion (generally by the following day).
9. Students who are not successful on their first attempt will be given written feedback to enable them to revise and resubmit their portfolio and paper for examination. Students wishing to re-sit the exam will be expected to enroll for the exam at the next possible time in the schedule, usually within six months of the first attempt. Students who are not successful a second time will not be allowed to continue in the program. Students can appeal the decision of the examiners by following the standard appeal process.
Role of Advisor or Supervisor
The student should discuss with their advisor the outline of their paper and portfolio early on in the process. If the student has already selected a supervisor, this person can fulfill the role.
A student is required to submit a draft of the comprehensive paper and portfolio to his/her advisor (or supervisor) before the comprehensive exam date can be confirmed. The role of the advisor is to ensure that the various parts of the portfolio are included, and to advise on any improvements that seem appropriate. It is not the role of the advisor to evaluate the work – that is left up to the examiners.
Role of the Examiners
The examiners are asked to review the portfolio and the paper, observe the presentation, and discuss the work with the student. The evaluation of the student is based on all three of these elements. As a result of this work, the examiners will assess the student’s ability in the seven areas specified in the comprehensive exam description. Following the exam, the examiners will give the student feedback directly, and write a summary of comments and their recommendation, which will be copied to the Chair, the Supervisor, and the student.