|
Article Excerpt
The authors describe the process used to revise a traditional doctoral student evaluation system from one that consisted of written comprehensive and final oral examinations to one that features portfolio development. Student competence, expected student outcomes in each competency area, procedures for portfolio development, and documents and procedures for faculty review of the portfolios are described. Recommendations for implementing such a system and implications for counselor education programs are discussed.
**********
The obligation of counselor educators to evaluate doctoral students' individual progress is well established (Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs [CACREP], 2001). Although the written comprehensive examination is a widely used and accepted method for conducting such an evaluation, there is concern among some educators about the efficacy of the practice. The relevance of the examination to training models (Peterson, Bowman, Myer, & Maidl. 1992), the negative effects of anxiety on students (Peterson et al., 1992; Schoener, 1999), and concerns about the benefits of the examination versus the costs (Loughead, 1997) are among the concerns frequently cited when the practice is questioned. At Auburn University, the traditional written comprehensive examination has been the centerpiece of doctoral student evaluation since the inception of the program. However, throughout the 1990s, faculty questioned the relevance of the examination, and each successive use of the established procedure resulted in higher levels of dissatisfaction among both faculty and students. Students' anxiety levels and the perceived lack of congruence between the examination and the program's stated theoretical and philosophical foundations and curriculum were the central issues. In response to these concerns, the faculty established a seven member doctoral student evaluation committee to consider alternatives to the written examination. The planning process (cf. Dahir, Sheldon, & Valiga, 1998; Hadley & Mitchell, 1995) lasted for a full academic year and resulted in a more coherent, integrated, and satisfying approach to doctoral student evaluation.
The purpose of this article is to describe the principal outcome of the committee's efforts, that is, the development of a professional portfolio as the central organizing feature of doctoral student evaluation. The areas of student competence that are assessed, samples of expected student outcomes in each competency area, procedures for students' development of portfolios, and faculty review of the portfolios are described. Recommendations for the development and implementation of a doctoral portfolio and implications for counselor education programs are discussed.
Rationale for Change
The doctoral program at Auburn University is accredited by CACREP (2001). The program of study is based on the assumption that students will complete 3 consecutive years of full-time study. There is sufficient flexibility in the program offerings, however, to accommodate part-time study after the 1st year. Students are admitted once per year in cohorts of six to eight. The goal of the program is to prepare doctoral graduates to assume faculty roles in counselor preparation programs. Decision making in the counselor education program is usually reached through consensus. The initial task of the evaluation committee was to reach consensus about the purposes of doctoral student evaluation and to assess the need to revise current evaluation methods.
To guide this effort, the following questions were asked and answered. First, what do the program faculty need or want to know about doctoral students' competence, knowledge, and skills? Faculty need to be able to judge the preparedness of graduates to assume the faculty roles of teacher, supervisor, researcher, and professional citizen/leader. Second, are these areas of competence adequately measured by the current system of evaluation? A thorough review of the content of the written comprehensive examination revealed that the existing method assessed knowledge and comprehension in foundation areas (i.e., research, helping relationships, counseling diverse populations, career counseling, group counseling, assessment and appraisal, human growth and development, and professional orientation). These domains did not accurately reflect the goal of preparing students to teach, supervise, conduct research, and participate in service activities related to the preparation of counselors and the advancement of the counseling profession.
Third, what benefits do students derive from participating in an evaluation system, beyond grades and other common performance measures (e.g., evaluations by site supervisors)? The program faculty agreed that the written exam was one-dimensional and did not provide faculty with adequate information to assess the relationship between a student's interests, personality, skills, and social/ cultural context and his or her knowledge (Goldman, 1992). Finally, the exams were entirely faculty driven, not taking into account the meaning students made of their experiences and progress in the program, their willingness to change, their skill in serf-monitoring, or their ability to be reflective (Tombari & Borich, 1999).
Fourth, how does the evaluation of doctoral students inform discussions about program goals and decisions about program revision? The written examination was not consistent with the philosophical underpinnings of Auburn University's Counselor Education Program (existential/humanistic/phenomenological), the theoretical foundations (cognitive and developmental) articulated in the university's mission statement, or the curricular offerings. Consequently, it was difficult, if not impossible, to use student performance on these assessments to...
|
