Lamar University Department of Deaf Studies/Deaf Education Doctoral Program in Deaf Studies/ Deaf Education

Dissertation and Teaching Portfolio Guidelines Introduction This handbook, the university student handbook, the graduate catalog, and official university website publications provide information concerning policies and procedures for students in the Deaf Education doctoral program. The student is responsible for reading all literature on the program, college, and university policies and procedures. The program was approved by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board as a 66 hour Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in 1993. The sixty-six hour program contains 30 hours of core courses, 21 hours of cognate courses, 9 hours statistic/research courses and 6 hours of dissertation. Lamar University is one of only a few universities in the U.S. offering a doctoral degree in Deaf Studies or Deaf Education. Lamar is addressing a critical national and international shortage of doctoral trained educators of the deaf. Graduates of the doctoral program take leadership roles in schools for the deaf or become teacher trainers in university settings. Both hearing and deaf applicants are accepted. General admissions requirements can be found in the graduate catalog and on the university website. After the student has been accepted by the College of Graduate Studies and the Department of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, the student meets with the director of deaf education division (or designated representative). The director will assist the student and advise them for first semester courses and address the issue of who will be the faculty advisor. The director of deaf education will also provide an overview and answer any questions the student has at that time. Further, the director assists the student until an academic advisor is assigned. This assistance may include but is not limited to course selection, research topics, procedural and policy requirements, and doctoral program requirements and deadlines. The academic advisor assists the student in deciding what courses are taken, what research topics are investigated, and

1

in some cases what types of financial support are available to the student. A student’s advisor, who must be a member of the deaf education division faculty and must hold graduate faculty status at Lamar University, will be chosen during the first year of residence. In summary, the sequence of events is as follows: 1. Doctoral student enters program. Deaf Education divisional leader registers him/her for classes and assigns a “major” professor/academic advisor. 2. When student takes a minimum of 18 hours (with a minimum 4 in deaf education core curriculum), the student takes Preliminary (Prelims) examinations. The academic advisor assists the student in forming Prelim committee. 3. After the Prelims, the student chooses a Dissertation Chair, and with this faculty member they assemble a Dissertation Committee. Roles and Responsibilities of Doctoral Advisors Duties of the “major professor” As stated above, the director of the deaf education division assigns the doctoral student with an academic advisor, often referred to as the “major professor.” This advisor or “major professor” will assist the doctoral student until the student has passed the preliminary examinations (known as Prelims). After passing the Prelims, the doctoral committee is formed. The “major professor” may later be chosen as the dissertation committee chair but it is not a requirement. The dissertation committee chair and the student will work closely, especially when doing research and writing the dissertation. Choosing the dissertation chair is one of the most important decisions that a doctoral student makes. Besides the research and dissertation work, the dissertation committee chair may be instrumental in helping a student obtain a job after graduation. Duties of Dissertation Chair The Chair of the Dissertation Committee should have some expertise in the area demonstrated by publications, presentations or work experience in the student’s topic. The Chair should also have the student’s best interest in mind to develop a scholar and work with the student to complete a quality research project. The Dissertation Chair will encourage the doctoral student to seek out expertise in his/her area, use the library, use outside consultants or any other resource that will contribute to his/her education. The doctoral candidate should feel comfortable with the Dissertation Chair and meet with him/her on a regular basis and keep the Dissertation Chair informed of the progress of the research undertaken.

2

Choosing the Dissertation Chair “Choosing the dissertation chair,” is a process that is two-way. The student may choose the professor, but the professor must also agree to assume the responsibility for the student. Doctoral students are encouraged to get to know faculty members, seek copies of their vita and their research and publication record, and begin to establish a relationship with a professor with whom they have mutual research interests and with whom they feel comfortable communicating and interacting. Students can begin to get to know faculty members by taking course with them or through scheduled appointments to discuss mutual research interests. In some cases, the academic advisor and the director of deaf education may feel it is in the best interest of the student to work with a specific faculty member because of the faculty member’s area of research expertise and publication record. But, a student may not feel comfortable with this agreement. Students are allowed to select the “dissertation chair” of their choice. But, they are encouraged to seek the advice and counsel of their advisor and the director of deaf education to find a dissertation chair who can best assist them in growing intellectually in their field. There are many reasons a professor may decide not to work with a student - the professor may be advising too many students to provide quality time with them. The professor may also feel that he or she would not work well with the student. By using the expression, “choosing the dissertation chair,” both student and faculty must realize that each party should choose each other. Students may decide to choose a faculty member to be their “dissertation chair” for a variety of reasons such as the faculty member’s reputation for quality teaching, scholarship, research productivity, publications, student advocacy, and interpersonal style. The student and the “dissertation chair” should know about each other before choosing to work together. It is a relationship built on mutual respect for each other. As mentioned above, the student should know the research interests, publication productivity record, and the expectations of the dissertation chair. The professor should know the student’s background experience, work habits and research interests. Both should be comfortable communicating and working with each other. Once the dissertation chair is selected, the D-3 is developed, and that person will assist the student in selecting other members of the dissertation committee, finalize the courses of study and completing the dissertation. How to change the academic advisor

3

During the doctoral student’s course of study, the student may choose to change academic advisors for a variety of reasons. The student may develop an intellectual rapport with another faculty member with research interests that the student would like to explore. The student may want to change his or her research topic. In extreme cases, a personality conflict may arise that leads either the faculty member or student to believe that a working relationship would not be possible. In the event the student wishes to change academic advisors, he or she must meet with a senior doctoral advisor or the department chair to seek approval prior to changing academic advisors. How to change the dissertation chair Under certain circumstances, the doctoral student may change his/her dissertation chair. Situations such as, but not limited to interpersonal conflict, lack of appropriate and timely assistance from the dissertation chair, or a change of dissertation topic may necessitate the changing of the dissertation chair. To change a dissertation chair, it is recommended, though not mandated, that the student first share their concerns with his/her dissertation chair. In extreme circumstances the student may not feel comfortable meeting with their doctoral/dissertation chair due to serious breakdowns in communication. If the doctoral student still wants to change their doctoral/dissertation chair and are still not comfortable communicating with the dissertation chair, they next step is to meet with the chair of the department and share the reasons why a change is necessary. If the problem still remains, the department chair will assist the doctoral student with the selection of a new chair. Once a new dissertation chair has been recommended and accepted, a D-15 (change in dissertation committee form) should be filled out and signed by the new dissertation chair, the department chair and the dean of graduate studies. Students may not be allowed to continue working on a previously defined research topic if the former dissertation chair has published in the topic area and has contributed time and work on the student’s project. The department chair will decide whether or not the topic remains the same or if the student needs to define a new topic with the new dissertation chair. Doctoral Committee or “Dissertation Committee”: Working together, the student and dissertation chair will decide on the Doctoral Committee. A Doctoral Committee consists of a minimum of five graduate faculty members: this includes a minimum of three Lamar University Deaf Education faculty members, plus two

4

other graduate faculty members. All graduate committee members must also be members of the LU Graduate Faculty. At least three, but no more that four, committee members should be from the Department of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. One Doctoral Committee member, not necessarily from the Department, should be chosen for his/her expertise in research design. As is the case with choosing a major professor, so it is with choosing members of the Doctoral Committee; the members must also agree to be on the Committee. The Doctoral Committee becomes official with the submission of the D-3A form (Doctoral Committee Form) to the Graduate Office. As this form must also be sign by the Department chair and by the Dean of the Graduate School, these two persons, in effect, approve the Doctoral Committee. The Doctoral Committee: w

approves the components of the comprehensive examinations,

w

has the final decision regarding pass/fail of the comprehensive examinations,

w

approves the dissertation proposal,

w

works with the student and dissertation chair in advising, encouraging, and approving the dissertation research,

w

attends the proposal presentation,

w

approves the scheduling of the final oral examination,

w

has the final decision regarding pass/fail of the oral dissertation defense, and

w

has the final decision regarding the acceptance of the dissertation. Note: The “academic advisor” will be instrumental in setting up the committee for the

preliminary exam. The dissertation committee, however, is responsible for the comprehensive exam, dissertation proposal and the dissertation defense, and will be set up by the dissertation chair and the student. It should be noted that some of the activities included in the above list must also have the approval of the Department Chair and the Graduate Dean. Because these activities are important steps in earning a doctoral degree, students should take care in choosing Doctoral Committee members and be certain that the members have interest, expertise, and publications in areas related to the planned research. Duties of Dissertation Chair and Committee Members Most of the activities in the above list are relatively common for doctoral programs. However, given the interdisciplinary nature of deaf education, it may be that the Doctoral

5

Committee will need to be more active in ‘promotion and approving the research’ than might be the case in a doctoral program in a discipline with relatively less interface with other disciplines. Further, it is the case that the proposed research includes sub-areas atypical for deaf education, it is important to choose Doctoral Committee members with expertise, interest, and publications in those sub-areas.

The Preliminary Examination (Prelims) The preliminary examinations or Prelims serve to show that doctoral students have: 1. The intellectual potential to do doctoral research 2. The ability to synthesize information gained from course work, independent study, and experience. 3. Sufficient written communication skills to express scholarly and creative outcomes. 4. The background to do doctoral research in the chosen specialty area The preliminary examination is taken after the student has successfully completed at least 18 semester hours of doctoral-level course work within the program. This 18 -semester hours must include a minimum of 4 core classes from the deaf education program. The prelims are eight hours of written examinations given by the three members of the prelims committee. To pass the prelims, the candidate must meet the expectations of all three members. If a member believes the students’ answer is weak, then the committee member may ask them to retake that particular part of the prelims. If all three members say the candidate’s responses are weak, then the student may be failed on the prelims. If a student fails his/her Prelims they will be allowed two retakes of the prelims. However, these retakes must occur in different semesters. If two members pass the student on the prelims, and one member fails, then the student must retake the “failed” portion and has a total of three tries. Once the student passes the prelims, the student becomes a candidate for the doctoral degree. In addition, once the preliminary exam is passed a student is now eligible to defend their dissertation proposal. Prior to passing the Prelims the student is limited in the progression within the program. The student must pass Prelims in order to be enrolled beyond 18 hours of course, defend the dissertation proposal, or other activities within the doctoral program.

The Comprehensive Examinations (Comps) The Comprehensive examinations are taken after the candidate has completed all of the

6

course work. Three to five committee members can make up the questions as directed by the candidate’s dissertation chair. The candidate writes for two days or sixteen (16) hours. Questions from the committee can relate to specific course work, the candidate’s research or any other deaf education related issue as the committee members believe the candidate should know. The student must pass all questions given by the professors of the committee. If the candidate’s responses are partially weak, the candidate may retake sections of the comprehensive examination at the discretion of the committee. However, if the candidate fails the majority of the questions posed by the committee, then the candidate must retake the comprehensive examination. The candidate has two opportunities to retake the comprehensive examination. The Comprehensive examination cannot be taken in the same semester as the Prelim examination. The candidate can not defend his/her dissertation until the comprehensive exams have been passed.

Dissertation Proposal and Presentation: The dissertation proposal marks the beginnings of the doctoral research and the dissertation itself. The purposes of the dissertation proposal and associated oral presentation are: §

for the student to isolate and formulate a particular problem or a small set of related problems whose solution is important to the field of deaf education and whose solution is significant enough to merit being called doctoral research.

§

for the student to assimilate background information to demonstrate understanding of the research that has previously been done on the problem(s) and how to proceed,

§

for the Doctoral Committee to decide if the student has done the first two items listed above sufficiently well,

§

for the Doctoral Committee to make suggestions as to Ø additional background information which should be considered Ø how the research problems(s) should be modified, and/or Ø

how the proposed methods of investigation should be modified, and

Ø for the Doctoral Committee to decide, if the proposed research goes as planned, if the results will be worthy of doctoral research. The first two items are, of course, interrelated. A student needs to do background studies to isolate and formulate research problem(s) and learn which research methods are appropriate to

7

potentially solve or contribute to the solution of the proposed research problems. From the perspective of a student beginning doctoral studies, the thought of doing good and appropriate background studies may seem overwhelming. For some research questions there is, after all, a great deal of relevant background material. However, the dissertation chair and other members of the Doctoral Committee can help make this task of assimilating the appropriate background materials doable, exciting, and rewarding. The dissertation proposal involves preparing a written document and then presenting it orally or signed in a public forum. The written document should include: ♦ background material, ♦ a well defined research problem, ♦ a plan for solving the research problem, and ♦ criteria for determining that the problem has been adequately solved. The background material should be adequate so that the final three parts of the dissertation proposal can be fully understood and evaluated. In addition to the above listed items, students are encouraged to provide both a time-line for completion of the research and dissertation and an outline of the proposed dissertation chapters. One goal of the proposal should be to describe the research and dissertation in as much detail as possible so that both student and Committee have a clear view of the proposed work. For some students an important challenge in preparing the dissertation proposal is to select a research topic that is solvable within the student’s constraints of time and academic/research background. Too often, beginning researchers err in attempting to solve mega problems, which are best approached through a series of smaller, more viable projects. By working with the dissertation chair and the Doctoral Committee in preparing for the dissertation proposal, the student can focus on a significant research/writing project, which can be successfully completed in a year or less. The dissertation proposal will be presented in an open, public forum. The date and time of the proposal defense will be announced at least two weeks in advance, and the final version of the written proposal must be given to all Doctoral Committee members, including the department chair, at least two weeks prior to announcing/scheduling the proposal presentation. Similarly, at least three weeks in advance of the oral, a copy of the proposal will be presented to the Chair of the Department of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education.

8

After the doctoral student completes the oral presentation of the research proposal, the Doctoral Committee must decide if the student is prepared to begin the dissertation research project. Thus, the Doctoral Committee must decide if the proposed research project is doable and whether the proposed work would be sufficient for a dissertation. A 75% vote of pass is required for the student to pass the proposal. However, it is in the student’s best interest to work with the Doctoral Committee on the written proposal until everyone on the Committee feels comfortable voting pass because then each Doctoral Committee member is in favor of the proposed research activities from the beginning. This reduces the likelihood of Committee concerns about developments during the research process. Following the proposal defense, the Doctoral Committee may recommend changes and/or ask for additions to be made to the dissertation proposal. Depending on the magnitude of the recommended changes and/or additions, the Doctoral Committee may require a second public dissertation proposal presentation, may ask the student to make the changes/additions in writing and submit them to the Doctoral Committee for their approval, or for non-substantive factors, may simply ask the student to make note of their suggestions. Once the student has passed their defense of the proposal all communication with committee members should be through the chairperson. Ideally, a student preparing for the dissertation proposal informs the Doctoral Committee (through the dissertation chair) about progress. Thus, after obtaining most of the information needed for the dissertation proposal, the student should make a short outline of research plans and send this outline to the advisor asking for comments and feedback. The dissertation chair will make a decision whether to forward the proposal to the other committee members. Further, the dissertation chair, upon giving the written proposal to Committee members, should ask for a meeting with each Committee member in about a week or ten days to discuss any comments, suggestions, or questions regarding the proposal. The intent of maintaining close ties with the Doctoral Committee is to avoid major surprises at the oral presentation. The Doctoral Committee members should know in advance of the oral presentation what the student is doing and the student should know in advance what the Committee members and the student can work together to see how the proposal can be improved. It is important that the advisor must approve any communication with committee members. Some committee members may feel that they cannot give appropriate feedback without this approval.

9

It is important for the student not to put off preparation for the proposal presentation to the last minute, and it is also important for the Committee members not to put off reading the proposal. When the student makes an offer to meet with Committee members to discuss the proposal before the oral presentation, committee members should carefully read the proposal so that the meeting can be productive.

Dissertation Research: After successfully presenting a research proposal, the next step for the student is to do the research itself. It is critical that the doctoral student work closely with the dissertation chair through all stages of conducting the research. Even when the Doctoral Committee has provided appropriate input and ample direction during the preliminary phase of the dissertation project, students will invariably find a need for additional mentoring and guidance. It is recommended that the student schedule in advance at least weekly meetings with his/her dissertation chair. All communication with other members of the dissertation committee should be approved through the dissertation chair. Since many deaf education doctoral students will work on interdisciplinary projects or on projects that span more than a single area of the discipline, it is often the case that several members of the Doctoral Committee will become actively involved in making suggestions regarding the student’s research. However, it should be clear that the dissertation chair is the primary director of the student’s research. When there is apparent conflict (e.g., when the student gets disparate advise from committee members), the student should inform the dissertation chair of the situation and the dissertation chair should seek common ground with the committee members. If possible, the dissertation chair should achieve consensus, but when this proves difficult, the opinion of the dissertation chair should take precedence and his/her direction should be followed. So that the dissertation chair can assess a student’s progress, the student should submit written progress summaries to him/her after the dissertation proposal has been approved. These need not be long or detailed - a page should be sufficient.

Reviewing the Research Project and Writing the Dissertation: It is recommended that no later than two months before the planned final oral defense of the dissertation, the student and the Doctoral Committee will meet to review the research project. This research review meeting is an opportunity for the student to present dissertation research findings to the Committee. The purposes of the research review meeting are to:

10

1. cause the student to bring all the research findings together in a unified form, 2. allow the Doctoral Committee to see the research results as a unified whole, 3. give the Doctoral Committee members the opportunity to make suggestions for good ways of organizing and presenting the results in the dissertation, and 4. give the Doctoral Committee the opportunity to address any concerns regarding the research prior to proposed dissertation. In preparation for this review, the student should prepare an outline of the research accomplishments. This outline should be given to all Committee members at least one week prior to the research review meeting. It is hoped that, after the research review, the substance and quality of the research will be sufficiently evident so that there is little question of the research being “doctoral research”. This does not guarantee that the student will pass the upcoming oral examination. Doctoral Committee members have the responsibility to raise questions about the research whenever they discover problems or concerns. However, since a primary focus of the research review meeting is to anticipate potential difficulties, the Doctoral Committee should make a concerted effort to identify and present potential problems at the meeting. The format, layout, or outline of the dissertation should be discussed at the research review meeting. The traditional format is for a review of the literature followed by sections dealing with research methods, research results, and finally, a discussion of the results and implications. Alternative formats may be followed if approved by the Doctoral Committee. By the end of the research review, questions of format should be resolved. There is no passing or failing of the research review, but the student should ensure that each committee member is satisfied with the research and with the planned format of the dissertation. Questions from both the student and the committee should be resolved at the meeting. If there are residual problems, the best way to resolve them is for the student and dissertation chair to meet jointly with the concerned committee members. Alternatively, if there are sufficient substantive problems which cannot be resolved at the review meeting or at subsequent meetings between the chair, student, and individual committee members, the chair may call for a repeat of the research review meeting after the student has addressed the committee’s concerns. In summary, it is expected that Doctoral Committee members will raise research and/or presentation questions in advance of the final defense. When questions are raised by the

committee, the student has primary responsibility for resolving them, first with the chair and subsequently with the committee members. After the research review, the student’s main efforts should be directed towards writing the dissertation. The level of Doctoral Committee involvement in the writing of the dissertation should be agreed upon by the Doctoral Committee and the student at the research review meeting. The recommended procedure is for the student to first satisfy the concerns of the dissertation chair prior to presenting drafts of the dissertation to the committee members. Ideally, the dissertation chair will carefully edit the student’s working drafts and then present, in nearly-finished form, the work to the committee for comments. This will require significant time commitment from the chair and weekly meetings between the student and chair are advised. It is important that all concerned understand that it is the chair’s responsibility to carefully edit drafts of the dissertation chapters and to do this prior to submitting drafts to committee members. It should not be the case that all committee members act as editors. Such a practice is not good use of faculty time, will delay the completion of the dissertation, and may cause unnecessary friction between members of the committee. It will also result in confusion and frustration for the student and in a dissertation lacking in cohesion.

Scheduling of the Final Oral Examination: Once the dissertation is completed and the student has incorporated the Doctoral Committee’s suggestions and comments, it is time for the final oral examination. Two weeks prior to the final oral defense or examination, the student must give each member of the Doctoral Committee and the Department chair a copy of the dissertation in its final form. Committee members should provide feedback to the committee chair. Assuming that substantive problems are not identified, the chair should schedule the oral defense of the dissertation. In scheduling the oral exam, the chair and student should keep in mind that faculty members have many time commitments. Planning for the oral defense should begin several weeks in advance of the projected date. In an effort to meet deadlines, students and even dissertation chairs are sometimes tempted to give committee members a copy of the dissertation which in incomplete, with plans to make further changes before the final oral examination. This should not be done, and committee members are free to not accept any revisions after receiving the final version that should reach

12

their desks at least two weeks prior to the oral examination. The draft of the dissertation that the committee members have two weeks prior to the oral examination is considered the draft of record for the examination.

Final Oral Examination: The final oral examination or defense is a public presentation of the student’s research and research results. The presentation should contain general background information understandable by other doctoral students in the deaf education program. Then the presentation should focus on the new research results and a discussion of implications. After the presentation, anyone in the general audience including members of the Doctoral Committee may ask questions. Then the general audience will be excused; those remaining will be Doctoral Committee members or members of the Deaf studies and Deaf Education Department. Anyone in this restricted audience may ask questions. Finally, everyone is excused except the Doctoral Committee and the Student. Members of the Doctoral Committee may then ask further questions concerning the research and the student’s doctoral program. Finally, the student is excused, and Doctoral Committee must decide if the student passes or fails the final examination. A student passes the final oral examination if no more than one member of the Advisory Committee dissents. Committee members may not abstain from voting. If the student passes with one dissenting vote, the student must yet address the dissenting member’s concerns (given in writing by the dissenting member) to the satisfaction of the dissertation chair and the dean of the graduate School. The committee may make its passing contingent upon certain changes being made in the dissertation. If the student fails, s/he may take the final examination a second time. After a second failure the student is dropped from the program.

Teaching Portfolio: A major objective of this doctoral program is to prepare students for academic careers. Thus, students in the program are required to prepare a teaching portfolio during their studies. To complete a teaching portfolio, a student is expected to teach at level(s) and in subject area(s) selected by mutual agreement with the department chairperson and the student’s advisor/ dissertation chair. Most students will fulfill this teaching requirement through their responsibilities as a Graduate Teaching Assistant. In addition, the student’s advisor may arrange for the student to present guest lectures in an appropriate course. Prior to the student’s teaching assignment, the

13

student , academic advisor/dissertation chair and department chairperson will determine what training the student should receive in preparation for instructional duties. Each doctoral student will prepare a portfolio of written materials that includes, at a minimum, a personal teaching philosophy statement and course materials generated while teaching. In addition, a student might include such additional materials as seems appropriate, including, but not limited to: •

A complete curriculum plan for an under graduate or graduate program in deaf education.

•

Detailed notes on some novel approach to teaching a particular course of courses.

•

A description of effective teaching evaluation methods. To enable students to effectively prepare for academic careers and to assist in preparation

of such a teaching portfolio, the deaf education faculty is committed to maintaining a teaching working group, open to all doctoral students. This group will meet at least monthly to investigate and evaluate teaching methods appropriate to the field of deaf education. These guidelines are subject to change once a year or via a deaf education faculty meeting.

14

Appendix A Considerations for Students and their Dissertation Chairs 1. Meet regularly. It is advisable to meet on a bi-monthly basis. During certain sections of the dissertation work you may need to meet once a week. 2. Prepare for your meeting. The meeting should focus on a particular topic/issue. Bringing an outline would be helpful for organization as well as helping to remember upcoming deadlines. You should also be prepared to provide a summary of the last meeting that can be developed from the notes taken. 3. Provide a summary of the meeting. An e-mail or typed summary of the topics and decisions reached at the meeting would be helpful to clarify any misunderstanding before problems arise. You may want to provide an ongoing e-mail correspondence. This is helpful in providing a documented record of the progress of the work. (It should be noted that this is not only focused on the students providing the correspondence). 4. Communicate clearly. Be ever vigilant to clear and precise communication. If confusion occurs, open dialogue can often eliminate the confusion before it becomes a conflict.

15