Assessment Details
Academic Year: 2020-2021 Level: Graduate
Campus Department: Lynch School of Education & Human Development [UG and Grad]
Program Type: Major [UG] / Program [Grad]
Program Name: Applied Developmental and Educational Psychology PhD (Link)
Description of Data Collection:
a. Comprehensive exams are graded by faculty members to evaluate students’ mastery of theoretical constructs and methodological approaches taught in the program. This evidence is used to determine students’ achievement of goals (a), (b), (c), and (e) listed above.
b. During their 2nd year in the program, students complete independent research projects. They are expected (a) to present their design at the end of the fall semester at a program meeting (b) report their results and conclusions at a program meeting at the end of the spring semester; (c) write a publishable research paper. Each of these components is evaluated by the faculty to determine the level of development of the students’ research skills. This evidence contributes to the faculty’s understanding of whether the students’ are making progress toward goals (b) – (g) listed above.
c. During their 3rd year, students are expected to participate in a dissertation seminar, which includes writing a literature review on a topic that they may be interested in researching for their dissertation. By the end of the seminar, students are expected to submit a pre-proposal, which is evaluated by their dissertation mentor and the faculty member in charge of the dissertation seminar. After submitting their pre-proposal, students go on to form their dissertation committee, submit and defend their full proposal, and submit and defend their full dissertation. Students’ dissertations provide evidence that can be used to assess achievement of goals (b) – (g) listed above.
d. At the end of each academic year, students in the first three years in the program are asked to complete an evaluation form that asks them to reflect on their accomplishments from the current year and formulate goals for the next year. The reports are discussed by the program faculty at the annual student evaluation meeting. The faculty discussion addresses students’ academic progress, their research activity, participation in conferences and publications, which reflects goals (a) – (h) listed above. Based on the faculty discussion, the student’s primary advisor provides formative feedback to the student in the form of a letter, which is followed up with a meeting.
e. After graduating from the program, students complete exit surveys, providing feedback on program outcomes and making suggestions for improvement.
f. Students who work as teaching assistants or fellows receive feedback from the faculty serving as their teaching mentors. The feedback is meant to be based on the review of any course materials developed by the student, grading practices, observations of student teaching, and/or discussions of observation notes. Teaching fellows also receive feedback about the quality of their teaching from student evaluations.
Review Process:
The program faculty members interpret the evidence of students’ accomplishments through the mechanisms described above (e.g., annual student evaluation meetings).
Resulting Program Changes:
a. One set of recent changes pertains to the comprehensive exam. Previously, students took the exam at school over the course of three days. During the first day, they responded to questions about conceptual and theoretical issues from their cognitive and social/cultural core classes. On the second day, they responded to questions that required them to draw on content covered in their methods classes. And, on the third day, they responded to questions pertaining to a special topic of interest that they identified prior to the exam. Each student was responsible for forming a comps committee that would help the student create a reading list pertaining to the special topic and come up with the special topic questions. It was decided that, because one purpose of the special topic questions was to prompt students to dive deeply into a topic that they might end up researching for their dissertation, it might be better to have students complete a literature review during the dissertation seminar (this is described in more detail below). Thus, the special topic questions were removed from the comprehensive exam. In addition, due to the Covid pandemic, there was a need to shift the exam from an in-office to an at-home format. The faculty therefore decided that the students would be responsible for writing two longer essays at home over the course of three days, rather than providing a series of shorter responses at school. Because students seem to prefer this format and because it appears to serve the evaluative needs of the program, the faculty have decided to adopt this format for the foreseeable future.
b. As mentioned above, the faculty decided that it made more sense to have students delve deeply into a specific literature of interest as part of the dissertation seminar (rather than as part of the comprehensive exam process). There were at least two reasons for this decision: (1) the dissertation seminar occurs after the comprehensive exam, thus giving students more time to identify a topic that could potentially serve as the focus of their dissertation, and (2) students’ exploration of the topic could be scaffolded by the instructor leading the dissertation seminar and supported by feedback from peers (i.e., other PhD students taking the seminar). Thus, students enrolled in the dissertation seminar are currently required to submit a “qualifying research paper.” As described in the program handbook, “There are two options for completing this requirement: A) ‘Lay of the Land’ or B) ‘Integrative Review’. While both options are designed to facilitate students’ development of their dissertation, each option is better suited to students at different stages of developing their research topic and questions. Students who have some clarity about their dissertations should consider Option B, which can form the basis for Chapter 2 of the dissertation. Option A is best suited for students who are still in an exploratory phase of their dissertation research.”
c. Another recent change to the program was the introduction of a three-paper dissertation option, in addition to the traditional dissertation format which focuses on a single study or set of studies. This option was introduced in order to provide students who are focused on becoming research professors (and thus motivated to publish extensively) the opportunity to divide the time associated with completing a dissertation across multiple manuscripts that have a chance of being published as separate articles. The three-paper dissertation option is subject to approval from the student’s dissertation chair, includes all standard pre-dissertation requirements (e.g., a pre-proposal and proposal), and the following requirements (which have been copied, and with minor editing, from the program handbook):
○ an abstract that provides a synopsis of the dissertation papers as a whole
○ an introduction chapter that provides (i) a statement of the problem/issue under investigation and the research questions or focus addressed in the three papers, (ii) the importance/significance of both the general topic of study and the specific foci of three papers as they relate to the cumulative knowledge and gaps therein, and (iii) the theoretical/empirical background and justification for the research questions and foci of the papers.
○ three papers of publishable quality
○ a conclusion chapter that details the collective contributions of the three papers to the field, including an overview of limitations and strengths to the studies, the major findings, and an integrative interpretation of the results from the three papers.
d. Regarding teaching, all doctoral students (except those funded via a Diversity Fellowship) are now required to serve as teaching assistants for two semesters, typically in the fall and spring of their third year in the program. Although this requirement provided faculty with teaching support, it also gives students the opportunity to learn how to teach undergraduate courses and mentor college students prior to being responsible for teaching their own course. In their first semester as a teaching assistant, the students typically support the instructor of the introductory course for our major, titled “Child Growth and Development,” by leading multiple discussion sections, holding office hours, and grading papers. The instructor provides the doctoral students with formative feedback. For the second semester of this requirement, students typically have the opportunity to teach their own course, rather than serving as a teaching assistant.
e. In addition, all doctoral students are now expected to complete the Apprenticeship in College Teaching (ACT) program through the BC Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE). As explained on the CTE website, “The Apprenticeship in College Teaching Program is a free, non-credit-bearing program that prepares graduate students and postdoctoral fellows for teaching careers in higher education. ACT seminars bring participants together across disciplines to engage important pedagogical questions. Classroom observations allow for discipline-specific discussion with faculty mentors in participants’ departments. And the final Teaching Portfolio and reflective essay encourage participants to synthesize what they’re learning. The program can be completed at the participant’s own pace, and successful completion of the program results in a robust teaching portfolio and certificate issued by the Office of the Provost.”
f. In 2016, the title of the APSY8115 (one of the core courses for our doctoral students) was changed from “Social and Affective Processes of Development” to “Cultural Processes, Social, and Emotional Development.” The change in title reflects the course’s increased emphasis on the role of culture in development, which is something that was missing from the program curriculum.
g. Changes were recently made to the sequence of methods courses that all students are required to take. Previously, students were required to take a quantitative research design seminar, two statistics courses (typically intermediate statistics and general linear models), one qualitative methods course (typically qualitative research methods or participatory action research), and one additional methods elective. Students are still required to take the quantitative design seminar, but are now only required to take one statistics course (typically intermediate statistics), one qualitative methods course (typically qualitative research methods), as well as two methods electives. The main reason for these changes is to provide students with more flexibility in terms of receiving the type of methods training that will best prepare them for the research they are planning to conduct.
h. Changes have been made to the proseminar that students take in their first three years of the program. The proseminar used to be a mix of professional development sessions and formal research talks (by students, faculty, and outside speakers). Because we wanted to have two distinct sets of participation norms for the professional development sessions and the formal research talks, we separated the talks into a colloquium series.
Date of Most Recent Program Review:
a. One set of recent changes pertains to the comprehensive exam. Previously, students took the exam at school over the course of three days. During the first day, they responded to questions about conceptual and theoretical issues from their cognitive and social/cultural core classes. On the second day, they responded to questions that required them to draw on content covered in their methods classes. And, on the third day, they responded to questions pertaining to a special topic of interest that they identified prior to the exam. Each student was responsible for forming a comps committee that would help the student create a reading list pertaining to the special topic and come up with the special topic questions. It was decided that, because one purpose of the special topic questions was to prompt students to dive deeply into a topic that they might end up researching for their dissertation, it might be better to have students complete a literature review during the dissertation seminar (this is described in more detail below). Thus, the special topic questions were removed from the comprehensive exam. In addition, due to the Covid pandemic, there was a need to shift the exam from an in-office to an at-home format. The faculty therefore decided that the students would be responsible for writing two longer essays at home over the course of three days, rather than providing a series of shorter responses at school. Because students seem to prefer this format and because it appears to serve the evaluative needs of the program, the faculty have decided to adopt this format for the foreseeable future.
b. As mentioned above, the faculty decided that it made more sense to have students delve deeply into a specific literature of interest as part of the dissertation seminar (rather than as part of the comprehensive exam process). There were at least two reasons for this decision: (1) the dissertation seminar occurs after the comprehensive exam, thus giving students more time to identify a topic that could potentially serve as the focus of their dissertation, and (2) students’ exploration of the topic could be scaffolded by the instructor leading the dissertation seminar and supported by feedback from peers (i.e., other PhD students taking the seminar). Thus, students enrolled in the dissertation seminar are currently required to submit a “qualifying research paper.” As described in the program handbook, “There are two options for completing this requirement: A) ‘Lay of the Land’ or B) ‘Integrative Review’. While both options are designed to facilitate students’ development of their dissertation, each option is better suited to students at different stages of developing their research topic and questions. Students who have some clarity about their dissertations should consider Option B, which can form the basis for Chapter 2 of the dissertation. Option A is best suited for students who are still in an exploratory phase of their dissertation research.”
c. Another recent change to the program was the introduction of a three-paper dissertation option, in addition to the traditional dissertation format which focuses on a single study or set of studies. This option was introduced in order to provide students who are focused on becoming research professors (and thus motivated to publish extensively) the opportunity to divide the time associated with completing a dissertation across multiple manuscripts that have a chance of being published as separate articles. The three-paper dissertation option is subject to approval from the student’s dissertation chair, includes all standard pre-dissertation requirements (e.g., a pre-proposal and proposal), and the following requirements (which have been copied, and with minor editing, from the program handbook):
○ an abstract that provides a synopsis of the dissertation papers as a whole
○ an introduction chapter that provides (i) a statement of the problem/issue under investigation and the research questions or focus addressed in the three papers, (ii) the importance/significance of both the general topic of study and the specific foci of three papers as they relate to the cumulative knowledge and gaps therein, and (iii) the theoretical/empirical background and justification for the research questions and foci of the papers.
○ three papers of publishable quality
○ a conclusion chapter that details the collective contributions of the three papers to the field, including an overview of limitations and strengths to the studies, the major findings, and an integrative interpretation of the results from the three papers.
d. Regarding teaching, all doctoral students (except those funded via a Diversity Fellowship) are now required to serve as teaching assistants for two semesters, typically in the fall and spring of their third year in the program. Although this requirement provided faculty with teaching support, it also gives students the opportunity to learn how to teach undergraduate courses and mentor college students prior to being responsible for teaching their own course. In their first semester as a teaching assistant, the students typically support the instructor of the introductory course for our major, titled “Child Growth and Development,” by leading multiple discussion sections, holding office hours, and grading papers. The instructor provides the doctoral students with formative feedback. For the second semester of this requirement, students typically have the opportunity to teach their own course, rather than serving as a teaching assistant.
e. In addition, all doctoral students are now expected to complete the Apprenticeship in College Teaching (ACT) program through the BC Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE). As explained on the CTE website, “The Apprenticeship in College Teaching Program is a free, non-credit-bearing program that prepares graduate students and postdoctoral fellows for teaching careers in higher education. ACT seminars bring participants together across disciplines to engage important pedagogical questions. Classroom observations allow for discipline-specific discussion with faculty mentors in participants’ departments. And the final Teaching Portfolio and reflective essay encourage participants to synthesize what they’re learning. The program can be completed at the participant’s own pace, and successful completion of the program results in a robust teaching portfolio and certificate issued by the Office of the Provost.”
f. In 2016, the title of the APSY8115 (one of the core courses for our doctoral students) was changed from “Social and Affective Processes of Development” to “Cultural Processes, Social, and Emotional Development.” The change in title reflects the course’s increased emphasis on the role of culture in development, which is something that was missing from the program curriculum.
g. Changes were recently made to the sequence of methods courses that all students are required to take. Previously, students were required to take a quantitative research design seminar, two statistics courses (typically intermediate statistics and general linear models), one qualitative methods course (typically qualitative research methods or participatory action research), and one additional methods elective. Students are still required to take the quantitative design seminar, but are now only required to take one statistics course (typically intermediate statistics), one qualitative methods course (typically qualitative research methods), as well as two methods electives. The main reason for these changes is to provide students with more flexibility in terms of receiving the type of methods training that will best prepare them for the research they are planning to conduct.
h. Changes have been made to the proseminar that students take in their first three years of the program. The proseminar used to be a mix of professional development sessions and formal research talks (by students, faculty, and outside speakers). Because we wanted to have two distinct sets of participation norms for the professional development sessions and the formal research talks, we separated the talks into a colloquium series.
Attachments (if available)