DOCTOR OF EDUCATION IN
LEADERSHIP
STUDENT HANDBOOK
Saint
Mary’s University
of Minnesota
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
2005
Acknowledgements
In
the course of preparing this handbook, the doctoral handbooks of several
Universities were consulted. These
handbooks include: the Doctoral Program Handbook of Monash
University; the Doctoral Program Handbook of the School of Education of
Drake University; the Doctoral Program Handbook of the Computer Science
and Electrical Engineering Department of West Virginia University; the Doctoral
Handbook of the University of Omaha Department of Public Administration;
the Doctoral Studies Handbook of the University of New Orleans; the Doctoral
Candidates Handbook of the University of Arizona; and the pre-existing Dissertation
Handbook of the School of Graduate Studies of Saint Mary’s University of
Minnesota.
Two works were also consulted for guidelines in the development of doctoral
handbooks. The practices and
recommendations of the Council of Graduate Schools as presented in their
document The Role and Nature of the Doctoral Dissertation (1991) and the
dissertation processes presented in Goodchild, Green,
Katz, and Kluever (1997) Rethinking the
Dissertation Process: Tackling Personal and Institutional Obstacles were
incorporated.
Table
of Contents
The Doctoral Student Handbook
Introduction
Web Site
The Department
Value Statement
Lasallian Vision
Statement
Departmental Vision Statement
Mission Statement
The Program
The Doctor of Education
Degree
Learning Models
Off Campus Programs
Twin Cities Campus Program
Choosing a Track
Advanced Research Writing
Independent Studies
Doctoral Program Transfer
Credit Policy
Graduation Policy
Grading Policy
Course Credit and
Scheduling Policies
Third Party Review
Assignment Submission Expectations
Admission to Candidacy
Requirements for Candidacy
Structure of the Doctoral
Committee
Role of the Doctoral
Committee
Responsibilities of the
Doctoral Committee Members
Selection of The Doctoral
Committee
Who May Serve on Committees
Procedures for Changing
Committee Members
Procedures for Changing the
Committee Chairperson
Working with the Doctoral
Committee
Comprehensive Examination
Process
Written Examination Process
Oral Examination Process
Comprehensive
Examination Registration
Comprehensive
Examination Security
Dissertation Proposal Information
Preparing the Doctoral
Dissertation Proposal
Writing the Doctoral
Dissertation Proposal
Process for Approval of the
Dissertation Proposal
Possible Outline of
Dissertation Proposal for Quantitative Research
Possible Outline of
Dissertation Proposal for Qualitative Research
Bibliography on Reliability
and Validity in Qualitative Research
Dissertation Information
Preparation of the Doctoral
Dissertation
Registration for Dissertation
Courses
Technical and Research Design Assistance
Process for the Approval of
the Dissertation
Criteria for Approval and
Defense of a Doctoral Dissertation
Conducting the Dissertation
Defense
Dissertation
Defense Registration
Binding and Printing
Ownership
Dissertation Process
Checklist
Directions for Writing the
Dissertation
General Directions
Dissertation Contents
Preliminary Pages
Supplementary Pages
Model Dissertation Pages
This handbook has been developed to provide the
information needed to successfully complete the Doctor of Education in
Leadership program at Saint Mary’s University
of Minnesota. Students are expected to obtain and follow
the procedures published in latest edition of the handbook. This edition of the Doctoral Student Handbook
was approved by the Academic Policies and Procedures committee on September 20,
2005 and supercedes all previous editions. The website edition of the
handbook is the most current and supercedes any printed edition.
The Doctoral Student Handbook and forms needed to
complete of the program are found on the department’s website at: http://www2.smumn.edu/deptpages/~edd/. The forms may be downloaded or printed from
this site.
The Doctor of Education in Leadership program values
ethical, visionary, and transformational leadership developed through relevant
and rigorous education. We value leaders
who are competent, informed, and thoughtful and who demonstrate positive
leadership focused on achieving the common good.
The Doctor of Education in Leadership department
seeks scholars from all disciplines. The department endeavors to
establish and maintain a culturally, socially, and intellectually diverse
learning community while admitting students to the department based on the
University’s ability to serve the students’ needs. The department
continually creates, develops, and evaluates its curriculum based on the needs
of students and the professional community while seeking to make it possible
for all students to succeed educationally in unique ways that enhance the
learning community.
The reputation of the Doctor of Education in
Leadership department is generated by the success of its students. Its
faculty seeks to develop barriers to student failure through facilitation of a
learning community that promotes student success through the creation of
instructional strategies that foster learning at all academic levels.
The Doctor of Education in Leadership department
faculty sees its role as preparing students for a lifetime of service to
others. The department promotes collaborative leadership and learning,
and is committed to serving the learning community through endeavoring to
include all voices in the dialogue.
The Doctor of Education in Leadership program seeks
to engender these values in students through a supportive and caring LaSallian
learning environment that fosters critical thinking, effective communication,
creative thinking, and intellectual curiosity by exposure to a diversity of
educational experiences. Our
instructional efforts focus on modeling civility, empathy, and compassion. We deliver relevant and rigorous education
through a dynamic and creative learning community.
Mission Statement
The Doctor of Education in Leadership program
provides opportunities for students to experience a comprehensive curriculum
and to become change agents of high ethical character. We also provide opportunities for students to
become engaged in service for a common good through the study of a wide variety
of subjects and diverse educational experiences. We empower students to do relevant and
meaningful research and to use contemporary resources effectively. We encourage dynamic and transformative
scholarship in an effort to develop learning facilitators for a wide array of
organizations.
Designed
for the experienced professional, the Doctor of Education degree (Ed. D.)
offers opportunities for professionals in education, government, corporate
human resource development, and human service organizations to do advanced
formal study of leadership. The Ed. D. program is designed for the advanced
student who wishes to achieve a superior level of competency in leadership.
Traditionally, the Ed. D. is thought of as a
practitioner's degree, appropriate for leaders desiring a superior level of
competency in their profession. The primary purpose of the Ed. D. program is to
provide experienced and practicing leaders with a broad and systematic
understanding of professional leadership, a definitive knowledge of selected
aspects of leadership theory and practice, and an ability to apply, in an
informed and critical manner, existing research findings to a broad range of
practice and problems.
The goal of our educational model is to create a
dynamic learning community allowing students to acquire an education that
transcends that which is possible through individual study.
Courses are
offered on the Twin Cities campus and at various off campus sites each
semester. Students, in consultation with their coursework advisor, are
responsible for pursuing their coursework in a sequence that will lead to
completion within the specified time limits.
Students are encouraged to establish an academic
community of learners that will allow each student to benefit from the
experience and perspective of other students. Collaboration, consultation, and
group learning activities are highly desirable. In addition, this model is
designed to allow students to form a network of support and friendship that
will assist learners who may be apprehensive about the rigors of graduate study
after a number of years away from the college classroom.
In addition to courses in leadership,
education, and research, two specialized tracks are offered: k-12 education and
higher education. Students complete the three courses from the tracks as
part of the required coursework.
Due to the importance of writing and research skills
to the coursework in the Ed. D. program, it is recommended that students take Advanced
Research Writing as one of the first three courses in their program of study.
Students in the doctoral program are allowed to take
courses as independent studies only in rare circumstances. Generally, students
are only allowed to pursue independent studies in areas where coursework does
not currently exist and extracurricular studies are desired and appropriate.
Independent study is not allowed to replace existing
courses due to Saint Mary’s focus on collaborative learning and the educational
advantages that are produced by this type of learning. The faculty member, the
Director of the Doctoral Program, and the Academic Dean must approve
independent studies prior to registration and beginning the coursework.
Requests must include a full syllabus from the supervising faculty member. The
work must be the equivalent of 45 hours per credit granted.
A student may transfer a
maximum of 12 semester (18 quarter) credits into the doctoral program upon the
recommendation of the program director and with the approval of the dean. The
credits must have been earned prior to beginning the doctoral program. The
credits must meet the following criteria:
1.
Credits must be listed on an official transcript. An official transcript is one
that is sent or carried to the university in an envelope sealed by the granting
university.
2.
The credits must have been earned at a regionally accredited institution.
3.
The credits must have been earned within ten years preceding matriculation at
Saint Mary’s University.
4.
The credits may not have been used as part of an undergraduate or graduate
degree with the exception of credits earned toward licensure or a specialist
certificate or degree.
5.
The credits must be clearly designated as graduate credits and must be
acceptable to the granting institution for its own program at the specialist or
doctoral level.
6.
The credits must be appropriate in content to replace the content of a course
in the Saint Mary’s University program. The recommendation on appropriateness
will be made by the program director and approved by the dean.
7.
The grade earned must be a Pass or a ‘B-’ or higher.
8.
Independent study courses are not eligible for transfer into the doctoral
program.
A maximum of 12 post-master’s semester (18 quarter)
credits may be transferred into the Ed.D. program.
These credits may have been earned at Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota
or another regionally accredited university. No transfer credit will be allowed
for dissertation courses.
The grade in a course in the Doctor of Education in
Leadership program represents the degree to which the student learning
objectives have been demonstrated by the student. Factors other than
those included in the student learning objectives and/or about which
instruction has not been provided as part of the course may not be considered
in the calculation of the grade. Academic and professional performance
issues that are not in the course objectives may be communicated to the
students through means other than the course grade.
Any work submitted that does not follow the current
APA style manual and the departmental publication format may not be graded
unless and until the work conforms to APA style.
Upon completion of all academic requirements,
candidates for the degree Doctor of Education in Leadership have a choice of
attending commencement or receiving their degrees in absentia. Doctoral students who are planning to
graduate must have successfully defended their dissertations by the last class
day of the semester. All final
materials, including the bound dissertation, must be submitted and accepted by
the due date for all academic degree requirements. Students should allow time for the Program
Director and the Academic Dean to review and accept materials before the final
date for completion of academic requirements. These dates are published for
each semester in the Course Schedule.
One doctoral credit requires a minimum of 15 contact
hours. Courses in the Ed.D program with reduced class hours require a
minimum of 13 contact hours. In addition, it is suggested that students invest three
hours per contact hour in outside study.
Dissertation courses require a minimum of 120 hours
per credit.
Full
time= 8+ credits of coursework or 2 credits of dissertation work
¾ time=
6-7 credits of coursework
½
time = 4-5 credits of coursework or 1 credit of dissertation work
Any work submitted to the Doctor of Education
department may be submitted confidentially to third party reviewers if, in the
academic judgment of the faculty, there is reason to believe that academic
dishonesty may have occurred. Students who are suspected of participating
in prohibited activities may be investigated and sanctioned in accordance with
the Academic Dishonesty Policy.
All work submitted to the department must follow the
APA Publication Manual and the department publication expectations outlined in
the student handbook. Work submitted that does not follow APA and the
departmental publication expectations may not be accepted.
Students who have successfully completed the required
coursework with a minimum grade point average of 3.0, passed the comprehensive
examination, and received approval of their Dissertation Proposal, may apply
for admission to candidacy for the Doctor of Education Degree. This application
requires majority consent of the student's Doctoral Committee, the Director of
the Doctoral Program, and the Academic Dean.
After admission to candidacy, the candidate is
expected to maintain continuous enrollment until the degree is conferred. The
department monitors this enrollment. Students must register for a minimum of
one semester credit of dissertation research each semester. Failure to register
during each academic semester will result in termination of the candidacy. If
the term of candidacy is extended beyond five years, the candidate may be asked
to pass another comprehensive examination.
All core and track coursework requirements must be
completed within five years of the start of coursework.
Comprehensive examinations must be taken for the
first time within six months of the completion of course work and must be
passed within two years of the first attempt.
Students will be allowed up to seven years following
successful completion of the comprehensive examination to write their
dissertation.
The total time taken to complete the degree may not
exceed ten years.
The Doctoral Committee will consist of four
members. Three members of the committee
must be from the Doctoral Program Teaching Faculty and one committee member may
be external to the Doctoral Program Teaching Faculty. If certain expertise is needed that is not represented
on the committee, the Committee Chairperson may recommend appointment of an
additional member to the committee.
All committee members must be members of the faculty
of Saint Mary’s University
of Minnesota. If the fourth or additional members are not
members of the Saint Mary’s faculty, they must be admitted to the faculty
before they may serve on a doctoral committee.
The three committee members from the Doctoral Program
Teaching Faculty read and evaluate the comprehensive examination. The three members of the Doctoral Program
Teaching Faculty and the fourth and additional members read and evaluate the
dissertation.
All committees are requested by the Committee
Chairperson and appointed by the Director of the Doctoral Program with the approval
of the Academic Dean.
Responsibilities of the Committee
Chairperson
It is the responsibility of the committee Chairperson
to maintain a professional relationship with the candidate at all times and to:
1. Select, in
consultation with the student, the remainder of the committee and request appointment of the committee from the Director of the Doctoral Program.
2.
Design, in consultation with the committee members, the Director of the
Doctoral Program, and the Academic Dean, questions to be prepared for the
Comprehensive Examination;
3.
Approve all proposals and dissertation drafts before submission to the
committee;
4. Provide
guidance about the nature of research, the research topic, the planning of the
research program, the presentation of a research proposal, pertinent literature
and sources, and about requisite policies and procedures;
5. Explain and uphold the
standard expected of successful doctoral work;
6. Give detailed advice on the successive stages
of work so that the program may be completed within the scheduled time;
7. Encourage the candidate to pursue independent
research with confidence;
8. Respond to interactive communications with the
candidate via telephone, videoconference, email, or other interactive
communication media to discuss progress and techniques;
9. Communicate the importance of regular written
work, interim reports or research results, and to return submissions with constructive
criticism within one month at most or within a shorter time frame if
possible;
10. Ensure that, where a change in research direction
occurs, appropriate committee adjustments are made;
11. Ensure that the candidate follows all University
policies and practices relevant to research, including the Human Subjects
Review process;
12. Ensure that the candidate follows APA guidelines
in the preparation of all work;
13. Ensure that the work reported in the dissertation
is the student’s own and that any editorial assistance in the writing of the
dissertation is appropriately acknowledged;
14. Ensure that the candidate is made aware of
inadequate progress by specifying the problems and suggesting ways of
addressing them;
15. Ensure that original data is recorded in a
retrievable, durable and appropriately referenced form and is stored safely for
a period of time not less than five (5) years;
16. Act as a liaison between the student and the
Doctoral Committee;
17. Chair the Comprehensive Oral Examination;
18. Chair the Dissertation Defense.
It is the responsibility of the committee members to:
1. Review and evaluate the comprehensive examination
written responses to determine if they demonstrate:
A. Analysis, synthesis,
evaluation, and application of knowledge;
B. Organization of ideas and
effectiveness of both written and oral communication;
C. Breadth and depth of
knowledge of leadership techniques and strategies;
D. The ability to research, write, and defend a meaningful doctoral dissertation;
E. Support of
conclusions with salient research.
2. Participate in the Oral Comprehensive
Examination and determine if the student demonstrates:
A. Analysis, synthesis,
evaluation, and application of knowledge;
B. Organization of ideas and
effectiveness of oral communication;
C. Breadth and depth of
knowledge of leadership techniques and strategies;
D. The ability to research, write, and defend a meaningful doctoral dissertation;
E. Support conclusions
with salient research.
3. Review and
evaluate the dissertation proposal to determine:
A. Appropriateness of
research design; Appropriateness of proposed data collection techniques;
B. Appropriateness of
proposed data analysis techniques,
C. Analysis, synthesis,
evaluation, and application of knowledge;
D. Organization of ideas and
effectiveness of both written and oral communication.
4. Review and evaluate the dissertation draft to
determine the:
A. Appropriateness of the
data collection techniques;
B. Appropriateness of the
data analysis techniques;
C. Analysis, synthesis,
evaluation, and application of knowledge;
D. Organization of ideas and
effectiveness of both written and oral communication;
E. Support of
conclusions with salient research.
5. Participate in the Oral Dissertation Defense
to determine if the candidate:
A. Demonstrates understanding
of data collection techniques;
B. Demonstrates understanding
of data analysis techniques;
C. Demonstrates analysis,
synthesis, evaluation, and application of knowledge;
D. Organizes ideas and
communicates effectively in both written and oral communication;
E. Researched and
defended a meaningful doctoral dissertation;
F. Supported
conclusions with salient research.
The
ultimate responsibility of the committee is to determine whether the student
has demonstrated the competencies appropriate to the Doctor of Education
degree.
Toward the end of the student’s coursework, the
student should select a faculty member to serve as the Chairperson of the
Doctoral Committee. The student should then approach that faculty member and
ask if they would be willing to serve as the chairperson of their committee.
The student should be prepared to discuss their possible research interests,
goals, and objectives for their dissertation. The chairperson of the committee
must be a member of the Doctoral Program Teaching Faculty at Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota and should have expertise in
the subject area in which the student plans to prepare a dissertation. A list
of available faculty members and their areas of expertise is available from the
program director.
The Committee Chairperson, the student will consider
the formation of the remainder of the Doctoral Committee in consultation with
the student. To select the remainder of the committee, the Committee
Chairperson will:
1) Approach at
least two eligible faculty members who they would like to serve on the
committee;
2) Provide the
names of those persons who have consented to serve to the Director of the
Doctoral Program using the form Request for Appointment of Doctoral Committee;
3) Unless the
appointment will result in an overload for the Doctoral Committee members or a
person is not eligible to serve, requests will usually be granted. In overload
cases the Director of the Doctoral Program will consult with the Academic Dean
before making an appointment. Acceptance of the invitation to serve on the
committee is at the discretion of the faculty member;
4) The Committee
Chairperson should select the committee members 10 days prior to the
Comprehensive Examination.
The Director of the
Doctoral Program and the Academic Dean must approve all committee appointments.
All Doctoral Committee members must be members of the
faculty at Saint Mary’s University
of Minnesota and hold an earned
doctorate. If a student chooses to ask a person who is not on the Saint Mary’s
Faculty, it will be necessary for that person to submit credentials to the
University demonstrating that they are qualified to be admitted to the faculty.
Minimum requirements for admission to the faculty for
the purpose of serving on a Doctoral Committee are an earned doctorate from a
regionally accredited institution of higher education and expertise in a field
of study within the University. To be admitted to the faculty, potential
faculty must submit a completed Faculty Information Form, a current resume, and
an official transcript of the earned doctorate. Faculty
are expected to attend a Committee Chairperson orientation before being
assigned to chair a Doctoral Committee.
At times and for various reasons, a student may wish
to change the committee members. Students always have the option of requesting
a change of committee members. The student must submit a written request for
change of committee membership to the Director of the Doctoral Program. The
Director of the Doctoral Program and the Academic Dean must approve the change.
If the student wishes to initiate a change in the
membership of the committee, the student should:
1. Consult with the
Committee Chairperson;
2. Submit a written request for a change of committee to
the Director of the Doctoral Program.
The Director of the Doctoral Program and the Academic
Dean must approve the change of committee members. Upon approval, the Director
of the Doctoral Program will send a memo to the student, the Committee
Chairperson, the Academic Dean, and the committee members involved, specifying
the change of committee.
If a committee member wishes to withdraw from a
committee, the committee member should:
1. Consult
with the Committee Chairperson;
2. Discuss
the matter with the student involved;
3. Submit
a written request for removal from the committee to the Director of the
Doctoral Program;
4. After
the change of committee membership, the new committee must meet and review the
progress of the candidate to confirm the direction of the project.
The removal must receive approval of the Director of
the Doctoral Program and the Academic Dean. Upon approval, the Director of the
Doctoral Program will send a memo to the student, the Committee Chairperson,
the Academic Dean, and the committee members involved, specifying the change of
committee.
If the student wishes to initiate a change in the
Committee Chairperson, the student must:
1. As a
professional courtesy, inform the Committee Chairperson that a change is
considered necessary;
2. Meet with the Director
of the Doctoral Program to discuss changing the Committee Chairperson;
3. Submit a
written request for appointment of a new committee chairperson to the
Director of the Doctoral Program;
4. After the
change of committee membership, the new committee must meet and review the
progress of the candidate to confirm the direction of the project.
The Director of the Doctoral Program and the Academic
Dean must approve the removal and appointment. Upon approval, the Director of
the Doctoral Program will send a memo specifying the change of Committee
Chairperson to the student, the current chairperson, the proposed Committee
Chairperson, the Academic Dean, and the committee members involved, specifying
the change of Committee Chairperson.
If a Committee Chairperson
wishes to be replaced:
1. The Committee Chairperson
must inform the student that a change is considered necessary;
2. The Committee Chairperson
must submit written notification of the change to the Director of the Doctoral Program;
3. The student must meet with
the Director of the Doctoral Program to discuss identifying a new Committee
Chairperson;
4. After the change of
committee membership, the new committee must meet and review the progress of
the candidate to confirm the direction of the project.
The Director of the
Doctoral Program and the Academic Dean must approve the change. Upon approval,
the Director of the Doctoral Program must send a memo specifying the change of
Committee Chairperson to the student, the current Committee Chairperson, the
proposed Committee Chairperson, the Academic Dean, and the committee members
involved, specifying the change of Committee Chairperson.
The Doctoral Committee exists to provide candidates
with the feedback that they need to successfully complete the dissertation. As
such, it is necessary for the communication to be open and honest between the
candidate and all members of the committee.
It is expected that the candidate will maintain a
positive, respectful, and professional relationship with committee members at
all times. Additionally, it is expected that the candidate will initiate
regular interactive communication with the Committee Chairperson via telephone,
videoconference, email, or other interactive forms of communication. At a
minimum, this communication should occur at least once a month. The
recommendations of the committee members shall be delivered to the candidate
through the Committee Chairperson and the chairperson will negotiate with
committee members when there is a difference of opinion among the committee
members.
The University encourages candidates and committees
to creatively collaborate to produce works that exceed the level of performance
that any one person could achieve on their own.
Doctoral students are
required to take comprehensive examinations upon completion of coursework. The
comprehensive examination is an integrative experience requiring students to
demonstrate personal mastery of concepts studied during the core sequence as
well as the ability to apply those concepts to challenges in their areas of
specialization.
The Comprehensive
Examination entails two components: 1) Written examination 2) Oral examination.
The process is designed to determine if students can demonstrate specific
competencies that are essential to attainment of the doctoral degree. In
particular, the examination allows students to demonstrate:
1. The abilities to
analyze, synthesize, evaluate, and apply knowledge as evidenced by an ability to:
A. Separate a concept into its constituent parts;
B. Assimilate other information and assemble the parts
into new concepts;
C. Evaluate the appropriateness of the new concept;
D. Create a standard for evaluating new ideas;
E. Use information that is appropriate to the
application.
2. The abilities
to organize ideas and to communicate effectively both in writing and in
speaking as evidenced by:
A. Logical
thinking processes;
B. Adherence
to APA editorial style;
C. Smooth
transitions between ideas;
D. Organized
thinking when speaking;
E. An
ability to listen to questions;
F. Answering
appropriately.
3. Breadth and depth of
knowledge of leadership theories and strategies as evidenced by:
A. Comprehensive
review of theories;
B. Use of
theories appropriate to the identified application;
C. Comprehensive
understanding of each theory;
D. Use of appropriate
organizational theories and strategies.
4. Breadth and depth of
organizational culture and change theories and strategies as evidenced by:
A. Comprehensive
review of theories;
B. Use of
theories appropriate to the identified application;
C. Comprehensive
understanding of each theory;
D. Use of
appropriate organizational change theories and strategies.
5. The abilities to
research, write, and defend a meaningful doctoral dissertation as evidenced by an ability to:
A. Identify,
locate, and report literature pertinent to the questions;
B. Write a
comprehensive and balanced literature review;
C. Create
appropriate systems for data analysis;
D. Design a
reliable and valid instrument for data collection;
E. Create
an appropriate research design;
F. Support
conclusions with appropriate literature.
To be eligible to sit for
the examination, a student must:
1.
Have a minimum
grade point average of 3.0 with a minimum of 51 credits completed (excluding
the dissertation courses);
2.
Be recommended
by the Committee Chairperson to take the examination.
The Comprehensive
Examination will be scheduled collaboratively between the student and the
members of the committee.
The committee members will choose three questions to
be presented to the student for written responses. The Director of the Doctoral
Program must approve these questions before being submitted to the student.
Questions may be distributed at any time mutually agreed upon by the Committee
Chairperson in consultation with the student and the members of the committee.
The responses are due 28 days later. The responses must be detailed, supported
with salient research, and must speak comprehensively to the questions posed.
The student will be expected to use all resources to complete the examination
including course material, research articles, and other relevant materials. All
resources used must be identified in the Reference List of each response. The
responses must follow the current APA editorial style manual.
All members of the committee will review the written
responses to the three questions. The Committee Chairperson will contact all
committee members within 10 working days of the distribution of the examinations
to determine the adequacy of completion of the examination. The Committee
Chairperson, in consultation with the student and the committee and the
committee members will schedule an oral examination of the responses. The oral
examination should be held within a reasonable period of time from
the submission of the written responses.
The oral examination will consist of a meeting of the
committee, the Director of the Doctoral Program or the Director’s designee, and
the student for approximately two hours. This meeting will be scheduled
collaboratively with the student and the members of the committee and must be
conducted on the Winona, Twin
Cities, or Rochester campus of Saint Mary’s University.
During the oral examination, the committee will question the student on the
written responses submitted as well as other areas the committee deems
appropriate to ascertain if the student has met the goals of the Comprehensive
Examination.
In order to pass the
comprehensive examination, the student must receive a 2/3 pass vote from the
members of the committee.
The committee may recommend:
1. Pass and admission to
doctoral Candidacy;
2. Conditional Pass, subject to revision and
resubmission;
3. Fail, retake written
examination;
4. Fail, retake oral
examination;
5. Fail, retake both parts of the
examination.
If the committee recommends a conditional pass,
subject to revisions and resubmission of the written document, the student will
have 15 days from the day of the oral examination to submit the responses.
If a student fails to pass both parts of a comprehensive examination, the
student will be required to wait a minimum of 16 weeks or one semester before
retaking the examination. The committee will recommend that the student
participate in classes or other activities to prepare to retake the
examination. The student will be charged the comprehensive examination
fee each time the examination is attempted. All retakes of comprehensive
examinations must occur within two years of the previous attempt.
Doctoral students who are approved to take the
comprehensive examination must register for EDD 899 Comprehensive Examination
(0 Credits) for the semester in which they plan to begin the comprehensive
examination process.
The comprehensive examination is a secure
examination. Students are not to solicit, provide, nor receive any
assistance other than library search and acquisition assistance with the
comprehensive examination. All other assistance in any form is
prohibited. Prohibited assistance includes, but is not limited to:
editorial assistance, pr