Amount of Time. Students should plan on investing a large amount of time preparing for Comps. Typically, students have spent one semester studying past Comps questions. One useful guideline is to think of your Comps preparation as a course that requires you to set aside time each week (8+ hours week).
Feedback. It is highly recommended that you write some practice responses and get feedback from your advisor.
What to Study. The comprehensive exam is an examination of students' comprehensive knowledge of their field and specialized knowledge of a particular topic in that field. Study materials should include all readings and assignments for courses, research projects, and practicum studies. Students should plan on additional reading should they feel the need.
All students should review the archive of past Comps questions. Students with an Ed Tech emphasis should concentrate on the ed tech questions. However, students should also review the ed psych questions. The same goes for students with an Ed Psych emphasis. All students should study the research methodology questions.
Write responses, get feedback. The Comps is a written exam and success depends heavily on students' ability to express ideas clearly, knowledgeably, and convincingly. It is strongly recommended that students write responses to several past Comps questions and get feedback from their advisors.
Before the exam. Students must do the following before taking Comps
Complete 80% of their coursework
Complete their practicum and submit the Practicum Completion form
Register during the semester of the Comps
Submit Comps Application form
Setting for the exam. Exams are emailed to students. The examination is administered as a take-home examination. Students obtain questions from the examination administrator at the start of the exam and return their answers to the examination administrator at the end of the exam period. Students may use whatever resources they wish (e.g., books, journal articles, notes from classes, libraries, personal journals and notes). Students are not, however, permitted to discuss questions or their responses with anyone during the exam. Students may work in the setting of their choice.
Questions. Students write responses to three questions. Two of these are common questions written by EPET faculty. The third question, focusing on the student's area of specialization, is written by the student's advisor and approved by the program faculty.
Common questions. Each of the four common questions focuses on one or more of the central themes of the EPET program, around which students have constructed reading lists. The questions should encourage the student to draw upon their more specialized knowledge in their response. Thus, in responding to a question focusing on issues of transfer or the situatedness of learning, one student might draw on more specific research literature on literacy learning and teaching whereas another student might draw on issues of learning through technology in schools, and another might deal with issues of connections between learning in school and in the workplace. The intent is for the student to deal with the broader issue by drawing on their more specialized knowledge.
Specialization question. The question written for the individual student by their guidance committee focuses on the student's area of specialization, but with the expectation that the student will draw on various general themes or issues relevant to EPET in answering the question. Thus, whereas the common questions begin with the general theme and have the student draw on their specialization, the specialization question begins with the student's research focus and has the student draw on general issues or themes.
Responses. Responses to Common Questions should be no more than 3000 words, not including references or the question. Responses to Specialization Questions are limited to 3600 words. Word limits should be strictly followed.
Evaluation and scoring. Comps responses are distributed to EPET faculty raters. Faculty return scores and comments.
Revision. Students receiving a Revise score will be required to revise and resubmit their response within a given time-period. The revised response is read by the faculty who originally scored them. The revisions are evaluated on the degree to which they have addressed the points raised by the faculty raters.
Outcome. The outcome of the revised response will be either Pass or No Pass.
Scoring. Each response will also be read and scored by two faculty members who will make substantive comments and rate each response along following criteria:
Disciplinary content understanding
Quality of argument
Use of sources
Responsiveness to question
Clarity and focus of writing
Each criteria will be evaluated according to the following rubric.
In the case of scoring disagreements of 2 points or more, faculty will discuss their evaluations and may revise their scores. (Faculty are not required to revise their scores to reach consensus.)
Feedback. In addition to substantive feedback, faculty readers must provide specific directions to the student when assigning a Revise score on any question. These directions would typically suggest that the student read or review specific readings and/or rewrite specific sections of their text to address issues raised in the substantive comments. When a no pass score is given, the reader must identify a list of central issues that the student has failed to master and, whenever possible, identify a more extensive body of literature addressing those issues.
Students have a total of three chances to pass the Comps. Students receiving a no pass on either common question must retake that part of their comprehensive examination at the next administration. They must answer two new common questions. Students receiving a no pass on their specialization question must retake that part of their comprehensive examination at the next administration (i.e., they must answer a new specialization question in the same format). In both cases, it is the responsibility of the advisor to develop a plan of study with the student that addresses the weaknesses identified by the readers.