Voices at the gate: Faculty members’ and students’ differing perspectives on the purposes of the PhD comprehensive examination

Sheryl Guloy, Gregory Hum, D. Kevin O’Neill

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

The comprehensive examination is a customary, yet relatively unexamined, requirement in North American doctoral education. This case study explored the purpose of a comprehensive examination as perceived by faculty members and students in a Faculty of Education program, at a Western Canadian University. We found that, in addition to the traditional gatekeeping function of the examination, other purposes emerged. Contrasting views about whether the examination was designed to assess content mastery necessary for teaching or designed to assess readiness for doctoral research were found. The use of the comprehensive examination as an opportunity to learn and as a means for identity formation, including introducing students to the pressures of academic life, also contrasted with its traditional assessment function. The purposes of the comprehensive examination remained ambiguous to students, even though they had been privy to discussions concerning the design and development of the examination. Moreover, faculty members did not always agree on the purposes of the comprehensive examination. The differences in perspective and how these affect the administration of the comprehensive examination have an impact on students’ experience, including examination preparation. Implications for the implementation, preparation, and assessment of the examination are discussed.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)279-291
Number of pages13
JournalAssessment and Evaluation in Higher Education
Volume45
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 17 Feb 2020
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • comprehensive examination
  • doctoral education
  • faculty perspectives
  • student perspectives

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Voices at the gate: Faculty members’ and students’ differing perspectives on the purposes of the PhD comprehensive examination'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this