Application

The Comprehensive Examination application can be found by clicking on the link below:

CITE Comprehensive Exam Application

Dates & Contacts

Key Dates

Spring 2023

Applications are due by Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 5pm. Please submit your signed application as an email attachment to the CITE Graduate Programs Assistant at cite@msu.edu

Part 1 exam begins Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8am through Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 5pm.
Part 2 should also be approved by the guidance committee during this semester.

Committee Membership

2022-2023
Sandro Barros & Anne-Lise Halvorsen, CEC Co-Chairs
Alex Allweiss
Terrance Burgess
Jungmin Kwon
Amy Parks
Emery Petchauer (spring only)
Laura Tortorelli

2021-2022
Laura Tortorelli
Shireen Al-Adeimi
Alex Allweiss
Sandro Barros
Terrance Burgess
Anne-Lise Halvorsen
Joanne Marciano

2020-2021
Amelia Gotwals, Co-Chair
Laura Tortorelli, Co-Chair
Shireen Al-Adeimi
Alex Allweiss
Higinio Dominguez
Anne-Lise Halvorsen
Joanne Marciano

2019-2020
Lynn Fendler, Chair
Shireen Al-Adeimi
Higinio Dominguez
Amelia Gotwals
Anne-Lise Halvorsen
Amy Parks
Maribel Santiago (FS19 only)
Laura Tortorelli (SS20 only)
Bethany Wilinski


2018-2019
Doug Hartman, Chair
Shireen Al-Adeimi
Lynn Fendler (SS19 only)
Amy Parks
Maribel Santiago
David Stroupe
Laura Tortorelli
Bethany Wilinski (SS19 only)

2017-2018
Doug Hartman, Chair
Alicia Alonzo (FS17 only)
Andy Anderson
Lynn Fendler
Elizabeth Heilman
Amy Parks
Maribel Santiago
David Stroupe
Bethany Wilinski

2016-2017
Gail Richmond, Chair
Doug Hartman
Amy Parks
Laura Tortorelli
Bethany Wilinski
Dongbo Zhang

2015-2016
Kyle Greenwalt, Co-Chair
Gail Richmond, Co-Chair
Rebecca Jacobsen
Amy Parks
David Stroupe
Laura Tortorelli
Bethany Wilinski
Dongbo Zhang


2014-2015
Guofang Li Co-Chair
Kyle Greenwalt Co-Chair (SS15 only)
Alicia Alonzo
Josh Cowen
Corey Drake
Amelia Gotwals
Rebecca Jacobsen
David Stroupe


2013-2014
Django Paris, Chair (FS13 only)
Kyle Greenwalt, Co-Chair (SS14 only)
Goufang Li, Co-chair (SS14 only)
Alicia Alonzo
Josh Cowen
Corey Drake
Amelia Gotwals
David Stroupe


2012-2013
Jeff Bale, Co-Chair
Django Paris, Co-Chair
Alicia Alonzo
Dorinda Carter Andrews
Samantha Caughlin
Janine Certo
Corey Drake
Anne-Lise Halvorsen
Raven McCrory

2011-2012
Angela Calabrese Barton, Co-Chair
Jeff Bale, Co-Chair
Alicia Alonzo
Dorinda Carter Andrews
Sam Caughlan
Janine Certo
Anne-Lise Halvorsen
Doug Hartman
Raven McCrory
Kristen Phillips

2010-2011
Angela Calabrese Barton, Co-Chair
Jeff Bale, Co-Chair
Alicia Alonzo
Janine Certo
Kyle Greenwalt
Doug Hartman
Raven McCrory
Lynn Paine
Kristen Phillips
Peter Youngs

2009-2010
Lynn Fendler, Chair
Alicia Alonzo
Jeff Bale
Doug Hartman
Kyle Greenwalt
Lynn Paine
Susan Peters
Avner Segall

2008-2009
Lynn Fendler (chair)
Doug Hartman
Susan Melnick
Gail Richmond
Peter Youngs
Avner Segall

2007-2008
Lynn Paine, Chair
Dorthea Anagnostopoulos
Mark Conley
Brian DeLany
Lynn Fendler
Susan Melnick
Gail Richmond
Peter Youngs

Basic Information

Overview

Part 1: Craft a Scholarly Essay on Education Issues
This is a three-day sit-down exam in which students respond to one question from a set of five developed by the Comps Committee. The department Comps Committee evaluates this portion of the exam.

Part 2: Research and Inquiry Artifact
This is a single-authored report of education research and inquiry, the genre of which is negotiated with the student’s guidance committee. The guidance committee evaluates this portion of the exam.

See below for more complete descriptions and instructions.

PART 1

Craft a Scholarly Essay on Education Issues

Description
The intent of Part 1 is to assess students’ ability to engage in an authentic scholarly process in a manner that approximates a commonplace task demand for scholars: to write a brief scholarly essay that analyzes, critiques, and locates an educational issue for an informed reading audience within a specified time frame. The Part 1 task requires students to draw on a range of literature as they author a scholarly argument on current issues and enduring dilemmas in a thoughtful, sound, and coherent way. It is not meant to be an assessment of a student’s particular knowledge base per se. The format of the exam (time period of three days, completed without assistance) is used to assess students’ skills at making and defending an argument efficiently and independently (without feedback) given these constraints.

The sort of questions that will be asked are similar in nature to those asked in the Department portion of Option 1. Click here to see a list of questions that have previously been asked for Option 1 exams.

Format

• Students prepare a scholarly response to a department-authored question.
• The comps committee prepares a set of about six questions based in teacher education research, policy and practice, which will encompass: foundations, curriculum, teaching and teacher education, and policy.
• Students select one of the proposed questions to answer.
• Responses should be no more than 5000 words (excluding references).

Time Limit

• Students have 3 days to complete the exam.
• Students will have from 8am on the first day through 5pm on the third day to complete their response.

Authorship

• Must be single-authored by student, with no discussion with others about the assigned question. However, students may ask questions of the Comps Committee as to how to complete the exam.
• Students may consult texts, notes and other resources as they prepare the response.

Genre
Students may respond using a number of genres with which they may have experience or familiarity:

• research & policy briefs;
• solicited pieces for magazines like New Educator or practitioner venues;
• the sort of thing you’d write in a New Yorker piece, the Sunday Review in the NYT, or the New York or London Review of Books;
• white papers;
• prepared testimony for state or federal lawmakers, etc.

Samples of such genres have been collated and posted at the bottom of this page to aid students in preparing for this part of the exam.

The expectation is not that students master any one of these genres. Rather, there are two goals:

1. in providing exemplars of these genres, the intent is to illustrate that developing research-based stances on enduring issues in education, often with limited time, is part of an education scholar’s practice; and
2. to give students more flexibility in voice and format in responding to an otherwise standardized portion of the comprehensive exam.

Assessment
The exams will be reviewed and scored by the Comps committee, using the Comprehensive Exam rubric.

Revisions Policy
Should revisions of the Part 1 department-level exam be required, students will have 45 days from receipt of the evaluation letter in which to complete and submit revisions.

To support students in making the revisions:

1. they receive thorough feedback in the evaluation letter reflecting reviewers’ concerns and suggestions;
2. a member of the Comps Committee will be assigned to oversee the revision process. Students are entitled to one meeting with this faculty member to seek consultation on the feedback provided in the evaluation letter and how best to go about making revisions;
3. students are also entitled to one meeting with their advisor in which to seek consultation on the feedback provided in the evaluation letter and how best to go about making revisions.

Special Accommodations

• Students for whom English is a second language may request up to an additional 48 hours for the exam – this means that the response would be due by 5pm on the 5th day.
• Students with documented special needs may make requests for changes in format (i.e., time allotment). Requests must be received at the time of the application, unless a special need is formally documented after the application, in which case the request should be forwarded as soon as possible after documentation.

PART 2

Research and Inquiry Artifact

Description
The intent of Part 2 of the comprehensive exam is to assess students’ ability to prepare an authentic scholarly artifact in a manner that approximates current practices in the field for research and publication. The expectation is that students prepare a single-authored scholarly artifact that addresses a significant and timely question using appropriately employed standards of rigor for the genre and methodological tradition that withstand the examination of peer review. The Part 2 task requires students to draw upon a specific domain of scholarship as they author an original piece that is significant, sound, rigorous, and clear. It is meant to be an assessment of a student’s knowledge base on a specific topic or issue. The format of the exam (no time period specified, single authored, but in collaboration with the guidance committee), is used to assess students’ skills at producing a long-form scholarly artifact efficiently and independently (with feedback) given the single constraint of sole authorship.

Format

• In collaboration with their committee, students will design and submit a scholarly artifact of their choice.
• Students may draw from a wide variety of genres and artifacts, including educational inquiry, critical literature reviews, position papers, scholarly analysis of education artifacts and issues of practice (i.e., teaching reflections and course analyses), or a detailed policy brief.
• Artifacts should be 12,000 words or fewer
• Artifacts can be previously published if the student is the sole author

Time Limit
Artifacts will be due on a date mutually agreed upon by the student and their committee, which should be in the same semester for which they enroll in the comprehensive exam. Students may begin to work on artifacts as early as they desire. While there are no formal requirements for formative feedback, students are encouraged to seek critical input from peers and experts in the field.

Authorship
Must be single-authored by student.

Special Accommodations
Students with documented special needs may make requests for changes in format. Requests must be received at the time of the application, unless a special need is formally documented after the application, in which case the request should be forwarded as soon as possible after documentation.

Special Note
The practicum paper or report is intended to fulfill a very different requirement of the doctoral program, namely ensuring that every TE doctoral student, and not just Research Assistants, gain some experience in conducting research before the dissertation stage. Therefore submission of that paper or report in the same form as submitted for the practicum is not allowed to fulfill the Part 2 comprehensive examination requirement. However, a substantially revised version of that report, one that is written in such a way that approximates current practices in the field for publication, is acceptable to fulfill the Part 2 requirement. It is up to the student’s adviser to determine if adequate revisions to the practicum artifact are made to allow it to be submitted for the Part 2 requirement.

FAQs

1) What if I passed part of option 1 (or option 2) in a previous semester? Can I just do part 1 (or part 2) of the new option in order to pass comps?
You must complete either the entire comps process for whatever option you initially began, or the entire process of the revised format.
For example, if you passed part of Option 1 comps in a previous semester, but not the other parts, you must either finish the rest of Option 1 comps or apply for the revised format and do both Part 1 and Part 2 of it.

2) How is part 1 different from the current option 1?
They are similar in that both ask you to develop an argument with respect to a given question and substantiate it with relevant literature. They are similar in that the questions are meant to be broad enough so as not to be “content” exams, that is, exams based on a canon of TE-related literature.
They are different in that the revised format gives you more time and asks for a longer response.

3) How is part 2 different from the current option 2?
The part 2 artifact is not that different from the department level Option 2 artifact. Both are meant to be single-authored write ups of educational research and inquiry. The key differences are these:

• External formative and summative reviews are no longer required. You are encouraged to seek such feedback from peers and leaders in your field on this artifact. However, the formal process is no longer required.
• Certain genres of artifacts that were allowed for the committee level pieces of Option 2 are no longer allowed. Examples include annotated syllabi, wikis of one’s teaching. However, scholarly analysis of one’s teaching practice or artifacts from one’s teaching are both allowed and welcomed. Also, book reviews that explore only one title are not allowed. Instead, essay book reviews that explore a number of recent titles or that situate one title in the context of the field are allowed.

4) Why does everyone now have to do a timed test?
Being able to develop a coherent, reasoned and substantiated argument about an enduring or urgent issue in education – and being asked to do so with limited time – is a regular feature of practice for educational scholars, policy makers and leaders. This timed portion of the exam is intended to assess your ability to craft such arguments.

5) How much revision is required for a practicum piece to be resubmitted to fulfill the part 2 requirement?
This question is largely up to the adviser to determine. As a general response, however, one must begin with the expectations for the practicum. These expectations vary widely across TE. In some cases, the expectation is solely that students get some valuable experience in conducting and learning from their own research, and the form that the write up takes is of secondary importance. Other faculty committees view the practicum as a “dry run” or mini-level dissertation, where the write up is critical. The amount of revision required to take the first example from its “practicum” form to its “comps” form will be much greater than that for the second example. For this reason, the adviser is asked to make that judgment call.

In general, though, the expectation is that the artifact submitted for Part 2 of the revised comps format approximate the quality and guidelines for current practices in the field for research and publication.

6) Do I have to fill out an application if I want to take the new option?
Yes, an application is required for the revised format. A copy of that application is linked near the top of this page.

7) Does the single-authored requirement mean that I can’t submit a piece that I worked on independently but that is part of a larger research project?
No. If your inquiry is related to a larger research project, but the question, design, data and analysis are done independently from that project, you may then use that piece for Part 2 of revised comps exam.

8) Could you give some examples of artifacts that would meet the current option 2 requirement?
Students may draw from a wide variety of genres and artifacts, including educational inquiry, critical literature reviews, position papers, scholarly analysis of education artifacts and issues of practice (i.e., teaching reflections and course analyses), or a detailed policy brief.

Part 1 exemplars

The purpose of offering exemplars is not to suggest that you must master or even mimic any of the genres of writing that are offered below. Rather, the purpose is to demonstrate that crafting fairly succinct arguments around key issues in teaching, teacher education, curriculum and education policy are regular parts of academic and professional life. They also provide examples of how to use different writing voices, perspectives, and “grain sizes” to get into a critical analysis.

Policy briefs
Click here to get to a series of policy briefs published by the National Education Policy Center. Some are longer than the word count allowed for this exam, but you get the idea.

Click here to get to a series of policy briefs published by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice.

Research reports/briefs
Click here to get to a series of research reports/briefs published by the Center for Applied Linguistics. Most of these are of a similar length as that required for this exam.

Click here to get to a series of research reports/briefs published by Rand Education. Most of these are a little shorter than required for this exam, but you get the idea.

Click here to get to a series of research reports/briefs published by the Massachusetts Department of Education.

Click here to get to a series of research reports/briefs published by the University of Alabama. Most of these are a little shorter than required for this exam, but you get the idea.

Media exemplars
Got Dough? How Billionaires Rule Our Schools, Dissent Magazine

School ‘Reform’: A Failing Grade, New York Review of Books

See the ongoing blog exchange between Diane Ravitch and Deborah Meier for a more dialogic exemplar crafted by two prominent education researchers and public intellectuals.

---

Still have questions?

Contact:
Doug Hartman, Chair of Comprehensive Exam Committee, dhartman@msu.edu

Taylor Gallagher, Graduate Programs Assistant, cite@msu.edu

Evaluation

Part 1 – Departmental Rubric

The summative evaluation of the Revised Format comprehensive exams can be Pass, Revise and Resubmit, or Fail

• To be evaluated as Pass, all items must be rated Adequate or Strong (i.e., no items evaluated as Weak).
• Depending on the proportion of Weak, Adequate, and Strong, the evaluation will be either Revise and Resubmit or Fail.
• The comps committee reads each of the comps papers
• The comprehensive exams are given an anonymous number and goes to three readers
• If you get a revise, then you get a comps committee representative to help guide you through the revision process

Criterion	Weak	Adequate	Strong
Stance and purpose	– It is not clear what stance the paper takes. – The stance taken in the paper is simplistic or naïve. – The purpose of the paper is not consistent throughout.	– The stance of the paper is clear to the reader. – The stance taken by the paper has some nuance (is neither simplistic nor naïve). – The purpose of the paper is mostly consistent throughout.	– The stance of the paper is clear, focused and highlighted. – The stance taken by the paper has nuance and sophistication. – The purpose of the paper is consistent throughout.
Thoughtfulness of response	– The paper does not make a convincing argument, does not draw on relevant literature, and/or does not go beyond summary or description. – The paper does not show evidence of consideration of alternate ways of thinking.	– The paper makes a convincing argument, draws on relevant literature, and provides analysis or synthesis that goes beyond summary or description. – The paper shows evidence of some consideration of alternate ways of thinking.	– The paper makes an original and compelling argument, draws on a comprehensive range of relevant literature, and provides analysis or synthesis that contributes substantively to the field. – The paper engages effectively with alternate ways of thinking.
Responsiveness to question	– The paper does not respond to the question, or does not address all aspects of the question. – The paper misses the point of the question.	– The paper addresses the major points of the question. – The paper generally demonstrates understanding of the issues posed by the question.	– The paper addresses every aspect of the question. – The paper demonstrates sophisticated understanding of the issues posed by the question.
Effectiveness of the argument	– The paper does not provide appropriate evidence, reasoning, or support for claims. – Citations are taken out of context or used ineffectively. – Reasoning is flawed with overgeneralizations, oversimplifications, and/or fallacies. – The argument appeals only to those who already agree (“preaches to the choir”).	– The paper provides appropriate evidence, reasoning, and/or support for claims. – Citations are drawn from appropriate literature and used effectively. – Reasoning is generally sound. The paper anticipates at least one counter-argument and addresses it.	– The paper provides compelling evidence, reasoning, and support for claims. – Citations are drawn from appropriate literature and used effectively. – Reasoning is consistently sound throughout. – The paper addresses a range of counter-arguments effectively.
Clarity of writing	– Parts of the paper are incomprehensible.Some features of the composition (grammar, word choice, organization) interfere with communicative effectiveness. – Some features of the composition (grammar, word choice, organization) interfere with communicative effectiveness. – Readers do not always understand what the paper means.	– The writing communicates effectively. – The writing (grammar, word choice, organization) facilitates communication and comprehensibility. – Readers can follow the flow of the paper.	– The writing communicates clearly and elegantly. – The writing not only communicates effectively, but also demonstrates sophisticated literacy with precise vocabulary, literary devices, and organizational structure.



Download ↓

Part 2 – Committee Rubric

There are no standard rubrics for committee pieces. Here are some rubrics that may be useful for committee pieces, however:

Research-based essays/manuscripts

For a score of “Pass,” all items must be rated as Adequate or Strong (i.e., no items evaluated as Weak).

Depending on the proportion of Weak, Adequate, and Strong ratings, the result will be either “Revise” or “Fail.” If the evaluation is “Revise,” you will receive mentorship from a member of the comps committee. Revisions must be completed within one year.

If the evaluation is “Fail,” you have two subsequent chances to pass comps.

Criterion	Weak	Adequate	Strong
Statement of problem/issue and purpose	– It is not clear what the problem or issue is, or the stated problem does not align well with what the paper does. – The purpose of the essay is not easily discernible or is inconsistent throughout. – The significance of the issue is not evident or compelling.	– The problem or issue is made clear, and the stated problem aligns generally with what the paper does. – The purpose of the paper is discernible, even if not entirely explicit. – The significance of the issue in the field is evident and understandable.	– The nuances of the problem or issue are made clear, and the stated issue aligns fully with what the paper does. – The purpose of the paper is clarified explicitly and in relation to other literature. – The significance of the issue is argued explicitly and compellingly.
Thoughtfulness of response	– The paper does not make a convincing argument, does not draw on relevant literature, and/or does not go beyond summary or description. The paper does not show evidence of consideration of alternate viewpoints – The paper does not show evidence of consideration of alternate viewpoints.	– The paper makes a convincing argument, draws on relevant literature, and provides analysis or synthesis that goes beyond summary or description. – The paper shows evidence of some consideration of alternate viewpoints.	– The paper makes an original and compelling argument, draws on a comprehensive range of relevant literature, and provides analysis and/or synthesis that contributes substantively to the field. – The paper engages effectively with alternate viewpoints.
Situated in the field	– The paper shows little or no evidence of having responded to critical review. – The paper is not framed with respect to scholarly literature in its field	– The paper shows evidence of having responded to critical review. – The paper is generally framed with respect to scholarly literature in its field.	– The paper shows evidence of sophisticated responses to critical review. – The paper is framed effectively and comprehensively with respect to scholarly literature in its field.
Effectiveness of the argument	– The paper does not provide appropriate evidence, reasoning, or support for claims. – Citations are taken out of context or used ineffectively. – Reasoning is not always sound (may include overgeneralizations, oversimplifications, and/or fallacies).	– The paper provides appropriate evidence, reasoning, or support for claims. – Citations are drawn from appropriate literature and used effectively. – Reasoning is mostly sound. – The paper anticipates at least one counter-argument and addresses it.	– The paper provides compelling evidence, reasoning, and support for claims. – Citations are drawn from appropriate literature and used effectively. – Reasoning is consistently sound throughout. – The paper addresses a range of counter-arguments effectively.
Clarity of writing	– Parts of the paper are incomprehensible. The composition features (grammar, word choice, organization) interfere with communicative effectiveness. – Readers do not always understand the writing.	– The writing communicates effectively. – The composition features (grammar, word choice, organization) facilitate communication and comprehensibility. – Readers can follow the flow of the paper.	– The writing communicates clearly and elegantly. – The writing not only communicates effectively, but also demonstrates sophistication with precise vocabulary, literary devices, and organizational structure.



---

Lit Review

Suggested Rubric for Evaluating Literature Reviews (contributed by Mary Kennedy)

Literature Reviews are not eligible for the Department Piece, but they are possible genres for Committee Pieces. Guidance Committees are welcome to adopt or adapt this rubric for evaluating literature reviews at the Committee Comps level.

Download ↓

Resources

Resources

Department of Teacher Education Digital Advisor.

Regarding Plagiarism
The consequences of plagiarism can include failing the assignment, failing the course, and expulsion from the university. Plagiarism is not a simple thing to understand, and it is culturally specific to US academia. Even if you are aware of what constitutes plagiarism, I recommend you familiarize yourself with this site. The College of Education policy on plagiarism can be found in the Graduate Student Handbook, in Appendix 1, pages 77-79.

MSU principles of scholarly integrity

TechInfo & Help

Tech Info: Post your technology questions, answers, ideas, and resources here!

When you log into D2L on the morning of the test here are the instructions you will receive:

• Choose one of the questions to answer in an essay of 3,000 – 5,000 words, with 5,000 words as the limit.
• You may consult written references, but you may not consult other people during the examination period. The exception is that you may ask the Chair of the Comps Committee questions about how to take the exam.
• University regulations about academic integrity apply: https://www.msu.edu/unit/ombud/RegsOrdsPolicies.html#Integrity. See also Student Rights and Responsibilities: http://www.vps.msu.edu/SpLife/.
• You have until 5:00pm Thursday afternoon to complete the exam. (If you have requested an extension, your paper is due at the agreed upon time.)
• By 5:00pm Thursday (or 5:00pm of your extension day), upload your response essay into the designated Drop Box on the comps D2L site. Do NOT put your name anywhere on your paper. Name your document: ID#_Question#_TEComps_Semester.

Previous questions

Part 1

Here are Comps Option 1 Questions that have been used in previous years.

These questions give you some idea about the kinds of questions that will be asked in the Option 1 exam. The first batch of questions is not organized by theme, but the second batch attaches a specific theme to each question.

The sort of questions that will be asked for Part 1 of the new revised comps option will be quite similar to the nature of these, as well.

PAST QUESTION

In the last two decades, a variety of critiques have been leveled against schooling in general and, specifically, against the construction of knowledge and the definition of knowing in the various disciplines comprising the school curriculum. Such challenges have only escalated in the past ten years with increasing pressures to hold teachers and students accountable for normative schooling outcomes.

Choose a particular school subject that is susceptible to the above critiques and:

1. Describe the critiques that have been leveled at your area of choice;
2. Describe the ways in which addressing those critiques in your chosen area could help, hinder, or redefine the area;
3. Using both critical and mainstream literature, take a stand regarding these critiques. In developing your stance, consider: how justified do you think these critiques are, and why? How does your position differ from those of the critics, and how would addressing your position help to redefine the area you have focused on?

PAST QUESTION

Imagine you are giving a keynote address to an audience of experienced public school teachers and administrators who are interested in school reform. Choose one of the following topics: the charter school movement, the achievement gap, or professional development. What is most important for your audience to know about your topic and its connection to school reform, and why? In 2500 words, provide an overview of what you might say to your audience.

In developing your address, consider the following questions: What are the current challenges in school reform and how does your topic address them? What are the various perspectives held by interested parties on school reform and your topic? What do you consider to be the most important or seminal studies in support of your stance? How do these studies build on the history of work done on your topic? What recommendations do you have for the audience members regarding steps their school might consider taking as related to this topic?

–Name two education scholars (U.S. based or international) you believe are particularly influential on contemporary educational debates and who represent different perspectives. Develop an essay in which you

1. name the contemporary debate and discuss why it is an important debate to consider (or where you situate it in the literature);
2. escribe each scholar’s contributions to the this debate; and
3. compare the two scholars’ perspectives, impact on the debate, and the evidence base they use (e.g., research they draw upon).

PAST QUESTION

Drawing on examples from your own subject area or research specialization, how do you conceptualize quality and rigor in educational research? What are the “touchstones” (or criteria or standards) by which you judge quality or rigor in educational research, and what bodies of literature most influence your emerging identity as a researcher?

Throughout your essay, be sure to elaborate on the touchstones by describing them and offering examples (in the context of a single study, a set of studies, and/or a community of researchers in dialogue). Where do you see challenges to your perspective in the perspectives of others in the educational community? How, if at all, might your perspective evolve to respond to those challenges? Given your responses, how might diversity of perspectives in the field of educational research be honored?

PAST QUESTION

In April, 2008, the America’s Promise Alliance issued a report, “Cities in Crisis.” Findings indicated that only about half of the students served by public school systems in the nation’s largest cities received diplomas in 2007. In Detroit, the gradation rate was the lowest in the nation, at 24.9%. Nationally, about 70% of U.S students graduate, and about 1.2 million students drop-out annually. This report joins a growing number of reports indicating that low graduation and high drop-out rates continue to be a significant problem. Recently, the issue of drop out rates (and how they are calculated) have garnered more attention because states must include them as a measure of high school performance under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

Considering these rates, discuss three different possible approaches to analyzing these figures and the implications these approaches have to offering potential solutions. Make references to specific reform policies or practices that have been suggested to ameliorate these problems, and align those reform ideas with the three approaches you have explained.

PAST QUESTION

Teacher education has become increasingly threatened by the critique that it has little impact on what actually happens in schools, and in particular on student outcomes. How would you describe these current critiques? In what ways should teacher education programs respond? Given what you know of alternative models for teacher preparation in the US or models of teacher education broadly in other countries, what recommendations would you make to the field of teacher education as it seeks to gain some significance or traction in these debates?

TEACHING/TEACHER EDUCATION

1. A teacher whom you know and respect (you pick the subject and grade level) comes to you with a concern saying:
   I have been doing my best to carry out the spirit and the letter of the reform recommendations that you talk about in my classroom, and I can see that they are making a difference. I can see that my students are more engaged cooperatively with each other than they used to be. I can see that they are actively constructing knowledge, both individually and collectively. I can see, too, that their activities in my classroom are more ‘authentic,’ more like activities associated with work and citizenship outside of school, and less like traditional school tasks.
   I am still worried about one thing, though. When I look at the students in my class, the most successful are still those that come from European or East Asian middle-class backgrounds, and the students who get ‘left out’ are still mostly poor children, Black children, or Hispanic children. What am I doing wrong?
   Assume for the purposes of this question that the teacher has been successfully implementing effective teaching practices including multiculturalism and respect for diversity. How would you respond to this teacher? You might wish to comment on the limitations of the reform recommendations (and perhaps of our knowledge in general) as guides for helping the students that this teacher is concerned about.
2. Imagine that you have been invited to be a candidate for a job at a university. As part of your visit, the search committee has asked you to give a pedagogical talk. The instructions are as follows:
   Teacher education—as a form of professional education—is characterized by a number of tensions, among them the tension between 1) teaching prospective teachers about relevant theories and 2) helping them feel prepared for practice. This tension arises in various circumstances such as
   1. when you want to help prospective teachers learn to teach subject matters (like mathematics or history or biology, for example) but the prospective teachers themselves do not have adequate subject matter knowledge,
   2. when you want to prepare teachers for schools as they are currently run and preparing those same teachers to be change agents
   3. when you want to prepare teachers (who are predominantly middle class white women) to teach children who are quite different from themselves.
      
      Write out the text for a 30-minute talk in which you describe one of those tensions and how it has played out in your own practice as a teacher educator. Draw from relevant literature to help you frame the tension and offer perspectives. What opportunities to learn have you constructed for prospective teachers in hopes of negotiating that tension? How have your attempts to deal with those tensions played out?
      
      Alternatively, if you have not yet confronted one of these tensions in your own practice as a teacher educator, discuss a tension or dilemma that is compelling to you. How does the relevant literature help you understand the content and character/the contours of this problem? Describe an assignment, activity, or set of readings that you might use in a class to address the tension you are focusing on. What would you anticipate would be some of the problems that might arise when using these materials?
3. Write an essay in which you analyze the validity of the following statement. Make sure that you take into account several alternative positions in response to the statement, and draw heavily on the literature to support your argument.
   “Programs of teacher education at colleges of education have only a modest impact on the way teachers teach.”
4. Write an essay in which you analyze the validity of the following statement. Make sure that you take into account several alternative positions in response to the statement, and draw heavily on the literature to support your argument.
   “The connection between teaching and learning is overstated.”
5. When the University of Chicago closed its education program in 1997, a teacher wrote an editorial about the decision and published it in Education Week. In his editorial, he said that the University of Chicago’s program would not be missed and that it didn’t really offer much to teachers like himself. Among other things, he argued that teaching is a craft, not a science, and that a good teacher-education program respects and relies on the knowledge, judgment, and experience of practicing master teachers.
   If it is the case that teaching is a craft, and that it is best learned in schools from classroom teachers, one could reasonably ask why education courses are needed at all, and one could ask why research should be carried out in a field that is essentially a craft.
   Write an essay on the nature of teacher knowledge. As you examine this issue, be sure to do the following:
   1. On one side, define the nature of craft knowledge, and describe its role in teaching. How does craft knowledge contribute to improvements in teaching? Use evidence to support your position.
   2. On the other side, define the nature of knowledge that derives from theory and research, and describe its role in teaching. How does knowledge from theory and research contribute to improvements in teaching? Use evidence to support your position.
   3. Given the differences you have just described, evaluate this teacher’s argument about the relevance of teacher education courses.
6. In the last two decades, a variety of critical challenges have been leveled against schooling in general and, specifically, against the construction of knowledge and the definition of knowing in the various disciplines comprising the school curriculum. For example, feminists have argued that schooling and school knowledge promote male-dominated, “objective,” rational ways of knowing and being at the detriment of more collaborative, subjective, and embodied learning. Multiculturalists have made similar arguments regarding the white, Eurocentric knowledge permeating the curriculum, and have called for the inclusion of multiple perspectives and the dismantling of white privilege as the curricular norm. Postmodernists have challenged the grand narratives of schooling and the disciplines that comprise its knowledge, emphasizing the need to recognize, and thus critically examine, knowledge and knowing as always already positioned. Poststructuralists have argued that knowledge is not only positioned–that is, it comes from somewhere and has an agenda–but is also positioning, acting pedagogically on those it engages by inviting (at times demanding) them to know some things and in some ways rather than others.
   Choose a particular school subject or a general educational issue that is equally susceptible to the above critiques and:
   1. Describe the critiques that have been leveled at your area of choice;
   2. Describe the ways in which addressing those critiques in your chosen area could help, hinder, or redefine the area;
   3. Using both critical and mainstream literature, take a stand regarding these critiques. How justified do you think these critiques are, and why? How does your position differ from those of the critics, and how would addressing your position help, hinder, or redefine the area you have focused on?
7. The terms “teacher quality” and “quality teaching” are currently being debated across most social sectors. One of the sharpest distinctions in approaches to the assessment of quality teaching is that between the “Input” model and the “Outcome (or Value Added Measures)” model. The Input model takes teachers’ knowledge and teaching practices as evidence of quality teaching. The Outcome (Value Added Measures) model takes student test scores as evidence of quality teaching. In your essay:
   • Provide the rationale for using the Input model to assess quality teaching. Explain which educational stakeholders advocate the Input model and why that is a reasonable stance for assessing teacher quality.
   • Provide the rationale for using the Outcome (VAM) model to assess quality teaching. Explain which educational stakeholders advocate the Outcome (VAM) model and why that is a reasonable stance for assessing teacher quality.
   • Suggest your own criteria for assessing teacher quality, taking into account arguments from both Input and Outcome models. Make references to arguments in the literature to support your stance.

CURRICULUM

1. Students learn a great deal from schooling that does not come from its official educational content, that is not part of the formal (intended or explicit) curriculum. Much of what they learn comes from the process by which schooling is carried out (for example, the instructional and disciplinary modes employed by teachers and administrators), from the form that schooling takes in practice (for example, the organizational and cultural features of the classroom and the school), and from the relationships that are inextricably part of the school environment (particularly those with teachers and with other students). Write an essay on about what students learn from school that is not part of the formal curriculum, drawing widely on appropriate literature for insight and evidence and considering the broader educational implications of this kind of learning.
   
2. A task often required of researchers (and certainly of doctoral students as they write their dissertations) is an examination of a certain body of literature. Your task here is to examine the reading list for these comprehensive examinations as a body of literature.
   What is missing from this list? What should be there and why? Perhaps there are specific articles missing, or perhaps there are entire topics or bodies of literature that are missing. If you nominate a topic or body of literature, give some examples of readings that illustrate this area.
   On the other side, a reading list such as this one cannot be overly large. If you add something to it, you must also remove something from it. Explain your reasoning for both additions and deletions.
   Be sure to justify your response. Explain the importance of the missing components and the relative lack of importance of the things you propose to remove. Articulate the bases for your argument.
3. The March 23, 2009 issue of Newsweek contained the following letter to the editor written by Nancy Mandel of Corvallis, OR:
   • “[The author of “Autism and Education” in March 9 Newsweek] has touched on a problem with education in this country. We often hear that American students are becoming less competitive in mathematics with foreign students. Our solution has been to set a minimum standard of desired competency and try to bring the nonmathematically inclined up to those standards. Imagine if the U.S. found itself falling behind other countries in basketball. Identifying students who are short and clumsy and teaching them minimal ball-handling skills would not win us gold medals. Our schools should concentrate on teaching mathematics to aspiring mathematicians, art to aspiring artists and woodworking to aspiring carpenters” (Nancy Mandel, 2009).
     
     Write a letter to Ms. Mandel in which you address the following:
     • Classify Ms. Mandel’s stance relative to other stances in curriculum theory. Explain the historical context of her stance and contrast that with alternative stances.
     • Explain your own stance on curriculum. You may agree or disagree with Ms. Mandel. Draw on an array of literature to support your stance, and be sure to address counterarguments.

POLICY

1. The American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education once held a featured symposium entitled, “Should teacher preparation take place at colleges and universities?” The presence of such a symposium at this conference was significant, given that the membership of this association consists almost entirely of college and university-based teacher education program personnel.
   School people and prospective teachers have long argued that universities’ approaches to the education of teachers inhibits access into the profession by requiring prospective teachers to take irrelevant and unnecessary courses in teacher education. Some governments, such as that of the UK, are trying to push teacher education out of the domain and control of universities and colleges and into the schools. Alternative routes into teaching (such as Teach for America in the US) are also being tried in a number of countries as a way of relocating teacher education.
   Provide an analysis of this controversy with consideration of its pedagogical, political, and/or sociological implications. What are the main reasons for this skepticism about university-based professional teacher preparation? Support your argument.
2. For the past 20 years or so, the national discourse about education has focused on the issue of “high standards for all children.” Write an essay with two main parts. First, argue in support of standards as a solution to educational inequities in the U.S. or in another country. Explain why standards could be used as the means for providing a high quality education to all students. Explore the necessary conditions for the successful use of standards to these ends.
   Second, argue against standards, explaining why they cannot work as a tool to provide a high quality education for all children and might continue to preserve or exacerbate current inequities in education. Conclude the essay by providing your own perspective on whether standards will or won’t provide a high quality education to all students and ameliorate current educational inequities.
   In support of your response, be sure to draw broadly on the literature concerning history of educational reform and the goals of education. It may also help you to situate your essay in a particular subject matter (history/social studies, literature/language arts, science, ro mathematics, for instance) with which you are familiar.
3. New federal legislation requires that schools employ “highly qualified teachers” (i.e., fully certified) if they wish to receive federal funds. That is, schools will no longer be allowed to use teachers on “emergency credentials.”
   • Briefly lay out an argument to support this policy, making the best case you can for why this policy would lead to improvements in education.
   • Critically assess your argument, using both the research literature and the likely unintended consequences of the policy. In your commentary, consider issues of teacher knowledge, teacher recruitment and retention, and the ways in which districts and states respond to federal policies.
4. It is safe to say that the United States has been in an era of standards-based reform in elementary and secondary schooling for over a decade. We have national and state standards in mathematics, literacy, science, social studies and even fields like technology. These reform efforts have not been without controversy. In addressing this issue, your tasks are to:
   • Select one of the sets of subject matter standards that has been developed since 1985 and (a) describe at least three educational problems which the standards claim to address and (b) describe the standards’ recommendations for solving these problems.
   • Identify and describe the opposing viewpoints that form the basis of the controversy between proponents of standards-based reform and their opponents. Include the rationale for each group’s position.
5. Provide the most persuasive arguments you can both for and against using standardized testing programs to assess school performance.
6. Education is constantly in the state of either imagined or actual reform, with an abundance of reform proposals coming from all interested parties on all sides of the political spectrum. Currently, for instance, we see reform proposals having to do with teaching for understanding, curriculum standards, high-stakes testing; whole language; multiculturalism, critical literacy, and so forth. These efforts have not been without controversy as evidenced by “the Math Wars” in which opposing sides have drawn “battle lines” for and against the reforms recommended in the NCTM Standards. While the controversy in mathematics has been widely publicized, other reforms have been equally controversial.
   In your essay, select one major reform (it does not need to be one of the reforms on the list above) and do the following:
   • Explain the substance of the reform and why its proponents felt it was necessary. Describe two or more specific educational problems that this reform is expected to address and describe how it will address these problems.
   • Identify and describe the opposing viewpoints that form the basis of the controversy between the proponents of the reform and their opponents. Include in your descriptions the rationale underlying each group’s position.
   • Describe your own personal position as an educator on this controversy and defend your position from a perspective of the personal impact on children being tested and the potential influence on society into which these children will become adults. Also, explain how you would address this issue in your own teaching.

METHODOLOGY

1. In what ways is qualitative research that is based on observation and interviewing similar to and different from a metaphor (which could be a discipline like journalism, an activity like shopping or an object like a river )? Structure your response in any way you like, but, at the very least, your response should address the goals, methods, and standards of quality for qualitative research and your metaphor. Please use academic literature to ground your discussions of qualitative work. The essay as a whole should take a stance that articulates the unique role of qualitative research in the world.
2. Drawing on examples from your own subject area or research specialization, how do you conceptualize quality and rigor in educational research? What are the “touchstones” (or criteria or standards) by which you judge quality or rigor in educational research, and what bodies of literature most influence your emerging identity as a researcher? Throughout your essay, be sure to elaborate on the touchstones by describing them and offering examples (in the context of a single study, a set of studies, and/or a community of researchers in dialogue). How might others in the educational community challenge your perspectives? How, if at all, might your perspective evolve to respond to those challenges? Given your responses, how might diversity of perspectives in the field of educational research be honored?

Especially For

Students

Information and Resources Especially for Students

This wiki is shared by faculty and students. Here are some pages especially by and for students. Please feel free to add to this page, build links from this page, and post discussion items (using the Discussion Tab above).

---

Study Group Questions

1. What are the specific instructions given to us about the writing – related to length of response, formatting, expectations regarding bibliography and citations, etc.?

2. We have a list of sample questions, but is it expected that certain types of questions will be included? For example, is it typical to have one policy question, one related to teacher education, etc. – or is this different each year?
There has been a general convention that Day 1 questions come from the domain of TE901 (history, policy, and sociology) and Day 2 questions come from TE902 (teaching and teacher education). But this is only an approximate separation.

3. Is there a specific timetable/schedule/deadline for the third question – the one designed by the program committee? Or is this at the discretion of each student’s guidance committee?
The Guidance Committee sets the schedule for the committee piece. Typically, students start the 10-day committee portion shortly after the two department exams are completed. The question should be related to: 1.)a topic which you know well and 2.) it should be a motivating – something to carry forward to your dissertation. Crafting the question will be something that you will be working on with your guidance committee. Typically, the work on crafting the third question is started at the beginning of the semester in which you take comps.

The product of the 10 day paper – could be a literature review, this is something that the guidance committee decides in consultation with the student.

4. What would you say are the most common errors made in answering the Option 1 exam questions?
The most common error by far is that the essay does not address the question, or it addresses only part of the question. For that reason, it is wise to take time (maybe 30 minutes) to read and study the question itself. In many cases, the question will tell you exactly how to organize your response. Read the question very carefully and be sure you understand what it is asking.

The second most common error is that the essay comes across as a sales pitch rather than an analysis. That is, the essay makes a strong case for one perspective, but it does not include any alternate points of view.

5. How does one go about framing the committee question?

6. How are the comps assessed and how are they scored? What are the procedures in place for deciding a pass, pass with edits or failure?

8. One student asked for some help approaching this question in particular:
A task often required of researchers (and certainly of doctoral students as they write their dissertations) is an examination of a certain body of literature. Your task here is to examine the reading list for these comprehensive examinations as a body of literature. The URL for the reading list is: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx What is missing from this list? What should be there and why? Perhaps there are specific articles missing, or perhaps there are entire topics or bodies of literature that are missing. If you nominate a topic or body of literature, give some examples of readings that illustrate this area. On the other side, a reading list such as this one cannot be overly large. If you add something to it, you must also remove something from it. Explain your reasoning for both additions and deletions. Be sure to justify your response. Explain the importance of the missing components and the relative lack of importance of the things you propose to remove. Articulate the bases for your argument.

9. What are some the most common psychological stresses that people face while taking each phase of the test?

---

Using Wikis to Collaboratively Prepare for Qualifying Examinations: An Example of Implementation in an Advanced Graduate Program.

Faculty

Information and Resources Especially for Faculty

This wiki is shared by students and faculty. Here are a few pages especially by and for faculty. Please feel free to add to this page, build links from this page, and post discussion items (using the Discussion Tab above).

---

Worksheet for advisors to help students with the application for Option 2

Contributed by Cheryl Rosaen

Comps Worksheet for Option 2
Department Piece:
Artifact (1):
Area of expertise:
Formative Reviewers:
1.
2.
3.

Committee Pieces

Artifact (2):
Area of expertise:
Formative Reviewers:
1.
2.
3.

Summative Reviewers: (committee members and 1 outside reviewer)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.



Artifact (3):
Area of expertise:
Formative Reviewers:
1.
2.
3.

Summative Reviewers: (committee members and 1 outside reviewer)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.



---

DEC Comps Policy Recommendations

Recommendations Regarding Comps Policy Issues

Providing Guidance on policies and procedures Recommendation:
Comps Wiki with resources for faculty and students

Word limits Issue:
Should the 10,000-word limit for the Department Piece include references, tables, and appendices?
Recommendation:
Departmental comps artifacts should not exceed 10,000 words including notes and references. If a student has a good reason to exceed that limit, we ask the student to send a brief note of explanation for why the paper is longer than 10,000 words. For example, writing for some journals may require longer manuscripts.

Published papers
Issue: Can students submit papers that have been professionally copy edited?
Recommendation: Professionally copy edited is acceptable.


Authorship
Issue: Should we allow faculty co-authorship for the department piece?
Recommendation: For the departmental comps artifact, students should not co-author with faculty. While we understand that students may want to generate manuscripts based on project- or grant-related work, for the purposes of the departmental piece the comps artifact should be authored by the student. Committee pieces may be co-authored if the co-authorship is approved by the Guidance Committee.
Note: Removing the option of co-authorship with faculty attends to the power issues that potentially emerge in the evaluation of the artifacts. It does not attend to the question of whether the students can prepare a high quality artifact without a co-author. For this reason we are currently discussing co-authorship with students or other non faculty.

Evaluations
Issue: Should we change the outcome options from Pass/Revise/Fail to some other language?
Recommendation: The Comps Committee would prefer to use the language of journal submissions:

• Accept
• Minor revisions
• Major revisions
• Reject

This language is also consistent with the academic world in terms of journal submissions.

Option 1 questions
Issue: Is it okay to include questions about research methodology?
Recommendation: Option 1 should include one methodology question on one of the exam days with the following points considered:

• Methodology questions may help include international students’ expertise.
• Aligns with research task force push toward literacy in multiple research approaches.
• Methodology questions can be designed to allow a range of epistemological commitments.
• We would not want students to answer methodology questions on both exam days, so we would one question on one day.
• Students get three questions each day from which they choose one to answer.

Note: the comps committee will make available sample methodological questions.

Option 2: Not enough high quality artifacts in Option 2
Recommendation:
The DEC believe that this is primarily a cultural issue rather than an issue of quantity. We recommend that the number of artifacts remain at 3 (2 committee & 1 departmental) rather than reduce the number of artifacts to 2. However we also recognize that we need to further think about the culture of doing comps option 2.

Comps committee chair(s)

This page contains a calendar of issues and items that typically need attending to at predictable moments through the year. We’ve also included some insights, tips, etc. we’ve learned over the years to help prevent you from having to re-invent the wheel or figure it all out again…

Start of fall semester

1. Collaborate with Department Chair to work out the committee membership for the year.
   • There is no fixed number of faculty needed for the committee. Instead, it should be a function of how many students we anticipate will take comps in a given academic year. Figure on three readers per comp artifact when deciding how many faculty should serve.
   • We try to get as broad a spectrum across the department as possible: epistemological commitments, content area and other disciplinary expertise, across all three ranks, etc.
   • Members typically serve for three academic years. This is by precedent, not by-laws. Thus, ensuring a reasonable ‘rotation’ of members is important to maintain some consistency and institutional memory on the committee.
2. Update comps wiki. This includes details such as:
   • The application due dates for each semester.
   • The exam dates for each semester.
   • The names and email addresses of the comps chair(s) – NOTE that this info is repeated at the bottom of EACH of the Option 1, Option 2, and Revised Format pages and thus requires multiple updating.
   • The names of committee members for the year.
3. Convene an early meeting with the entire committee. The main purposes of this meeting are to:
   • Orient new committee members to the pace, scope and details of the committee’s work
   • Review and resolve any pending policy issues
   • Set plan for devising exam questions for the fall semester’s Option 1 and Revised Format exams.
   • Set up date for the evaluation meeting. In order to ensure a timely response to student exams, this should be about 2 weeks after the exams have been turned in.
4. Ask the Program Secretary supporting the comps committee to email all PhD students with a link to the updated comps wiki and the name(s) and contact info of the comps chair(s).
   
   THIS PART NEEDS TO BE FINISHED UP.
5. Administering the exams
6. The evaluation meeting
7. Mid-semester

Appeal Process

A graduate student may appeal an evaluation of Fail on their Comprehensive exam Part 1. TE’s Comprehensive Exam Appeal Procedure follows Michigan State University’s general procedures for student complaints and grievances as found at http://ombud.msu.edu/Complaint%20and%20Grievance%20Systems.html and as outlined in MSU’s Student Rights and Responsibilities (SRR) and the Graduate Rights and Responsibilities (GSRR). The student may contact the Office of the University Ombudsperson for confidential assistance and advice with any University-related complaint. The Department of Teacher Education Comprehensive Exam Appeal procedure is as follows:

1) Student contacts the Comps Committee Chair within 5 working days of receipt of the evaluation letter to schedule a meeting to discuss the results of the exam. In the process, the Comps Committee Chair may consult other members of the Comps Committee. The meeting should take place within 10 working days after the student contacts the Comps Committee Chair.
2) If dissatisfied with the Comps Committee Chair meeting, the student submits a detailed appeal letter to the Comps Committee Chair within 10 working days after the meeting with the Comps Committee Chair. The appeal letter should directly address all aspects of the Comps Committee’s evaluation letter, indicating (a) what the committee said about the essay meeting and not meeting the standards in the rubric, and (b) what the doctoral student’s argument(s) is/are for a re-evaluation of the essay in terms of the rubric standards. Student request is reviewed by the Comps Committee, and a decision letter is sent to the student within 15 working days of receiving the student’s appeal letter.
3) If dissatisfied with the Comps Committee decision, the student submits the appeal letter to the department’s Doctoral Education Committee (DEC) Chair* within 10 working days of receiving the Comps Committee decision letter. The DEC Chair, in consultation with DEC faculty, will review the student’s appeal letter, the Comps question, the student’s exam, the exam rubric, the Comps Committee evaluation letter, and the Comps Committee decision letter in response to the student’s appeal. Student request is reviewed by the DEC, and a decision letter is sent to the student within 15 working days from the DEC’s receipt of the student’s appeal letter.
4) If dissatisfied with the DEC’s decision, graduate students may request an academic grievance hearing following procedures as outlined in The Department of Teacher Education Academic Hearing Board Procedures for Undergraduate and Graduate Students.

Note: The student is encouraged to speak to their advisor at any point prior to and in the process of this procedure.

*Please contact the Department of Teacher Education Main Office for the name of the current sitting Chair.