- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Investigating faculty perspectives on written qualifying exams in physics

Shiva Basir1 and Eric Burkholder1,2,*

  • 1Department of Physics, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36849, USA
  • 2Dpeartment of Chemical Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36849, USA

  • *Corresponding author: ewb0026@auburn.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010139 – Published 10 May, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010139

Abstract

Doctoral qualifying exams are considered essential in assessing a student’s readiness for research and advanced studies. Despite their significant role in many physics programs, questions have been raised about their format, execution, and relevance. Our research investigates perceptions held by faculty members regarding the graduate doctoral examination (GDE), a written qualifying exam in Auburn University’s physics department doctoral program. We used a combination of semistructured interviews and a survey to probe their viewpoints about the purpose and necessity of written qualifying exams, their role in student preparation for these exams, and the efficacy of these exams in measuring students’ comprehensive knowledge and potential for success in physics. Despite the general consensus on the necessity of the GDE, faculty members expressed doubts about its ability to accurately predict students’ future research success and its alignment with other graduate program elements such as coursework. Proposed modifications ranged from an emphasis on oral assessments and research presentations to a complete overhaul of the examination structure. Despite these suggestions for change, the lack of agreement on a specific alternative underscores the complexity of executing substantial modifications to the GDE. Our study contributes to the ongoing dialogue on optimizing doctoral qualifying exams to better serve students and academic institutions.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (47)

  1. Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing stewards of the discipline, edited by C. M. Golde and G. E. Walker, Carnegie essays on the doctorate (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 2006).
  2. R. Liera, A. J. Rodgers, L. N. Irwin, and J. R. Posselt, Rethinking doctoral qualifying exams and candidacy in the physical sciences: Learning toward scientific legitimacy, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020110 (2023).
  3. S. K. Gardner, Student and faculty attributions of attrition in high and low-completing doctoral programs in the United States, Higher Educ. 58, 97 (2009).
  4. P. Green and J. Bowden, Completion mindsets and contexts in doctoral supervision, Qual. Assur. Educ. 20, 66 (2012).
  5. B. E. Lovitts, Leaving the Ivory Tower: The Causes and Consequences of Departure from Doctoral Study (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, MD, 2001).
  6. J. D. Nyquist and D. H. Wulff, Working Effectively with Graduate Assistants (Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, 1996).
  7. H. Estrem and B. E. Lucas, Embedded traditions, uneven reform: The place of the comprehensive exam in composition and rhetoric Ph.D. programs, Rhetoric Rev. 22, 396 (2003).
  8. A. L. Furstenberg and A. Nichols-Casebolt, Hurdle or building block: Comprehensive examinations in social work doctoral education, J. Teach. Soc. Work 21, 19 (2001).
  9. K. Kostohryz, The doctoral comprehensive examination in counselor education: Faculty members’ perception of its purposes, J. Counselor Prep. Superv. 8, 1 (2016).
  10. E. A. Schmidt, L. E. Homeyer, and J. L. Walker, Predictors of success on the counselor preparation comprehensive examination, Couns. Educ. Superv. 48, 226 (2009).
  11. R. A. Beebe, W. A. Noyes, B. Riegel, W. G. Young, S. C. Lind, and E. M. Billings, Philosophy of graduate training at Ph. D. Level, Chem. Eng. News 26, 165 (1948).
  12. N. Ponder, S. E. Beatty, and W. Foxx, Doctoral comprehensive exams in marketing: Current practices and emerging perspectives, J. Market. Educ. 26, 226 (2004).
  13. S. Gelmez Burakgai and A. Yildirim, Journey into doctoral candidacy: A grounded theory of doctoral qualification exam process, Croatian J. Educ. 19, 63 (2017).
  14. American Center for Physics, Graduate education in physics: Which way forward?, in Proceedings of a Conference to Discuss the Status and Future of Graduate Education in Physics (American Physical Society and American Association of Physics Teachers One Physics Life, College Park, MD, 2008).
  15. K. Rosinger, K. Ford, J. Posselt, and J. Choi, Exploring the impact of GRE-accepting admissions on law school diversity and selectivity, Rev. High. Educ. 46, 109 (2022).
  16. E. Marshman, R. Sayer, C. Henderson, and C. Singh, Contrasting grading approaches in introductory physics and quantum mechanics: The case of graduate teaching assistants, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010120 (2017).
  17. A. H. Herzig, Where have all the students gone? Participation of doctoral students in authentic mathematical activity as a necessary condition for persistence toward the Ph.D., Educ. Stud. Math. 50, 177 (2002).
  18. A. J. MacLachlan, Preservation of Educational Inequality in Doctoral Education: Tacit Knowledge, Implicit Bias and University Faculty. Research & Occasional Paper Series: CSHE. 1.17, Center for Studies in Higher Education (2017).
  19. S. L. Pressey, L. C. Pressey, and E. J. Barnes. The final ordeal, J. Higher Educ. 3, 261 (1932).
  20. Power and Privilege in the Learning Sciences: Critical and Sociocultural Theories of Learning, edited by I. Esmonde and A. N. Booker (Taylor & Francis, New York, NY, 2016).
  21. J. Lave and E. Wenger, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1991).
  22. S. Gaukroger, Objectivity: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, New York, 2012), Vol. 316.
  23. D. L. Reinholz, R. L. Matz, R. Cole, and N. Apkarian, STEM is not a monolith: A preliminary analysis of variations in STEM disciplinary cultures and implications for change, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 18, mr4 (2019).
  24. Y. Chun Tie, M. Birks, and K. Francis, Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers, SAGE Open Med. 7, 2050312118822927 (2019).
  25. R. Thornberg, Informed grounded theory, Scand. J. Educ. Res. 56, 243 (2012).
  26. M. Palmer, M. Larkin, R. O. de Visser, and G. Fadden, Developing an interpretative phenomenological approach to focus group data, Qual. Res. Psychol. 7, 99 (2010).
  27. A. Alase, The interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA): A guide to a good qualitative research approach. Int. J. Educ. Literacy Stud. 5, 9 (2017).
  28. K. Reid, P. Flowers, and M. Larkin, Exploring lived experience, Psychologist 18, 20 (2005), https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/exploring-lived-experience.
  29. A. E. Austin, Faculty cultures, faculty values, New Directions Institut. Res. 1990, 61 (1990).
  30. R. Donnelly, Perceived impact of peer observation of teaching in higher education, Int. J. Teach. Learn. Higher Educ. 19, 117 (2007), https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ901290.
  31. K. Charmaz, Constructing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed. (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2014).
  32. M. Williams and T. Moser, The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative research, Int. Manag. Rev. 15, 45 (2019).
  33. A. Strauss and J. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1990).
  34. J. Saldana, The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2015).
  35. R. Thornberg and K. Charmaz, Grounded theory and theoretical coding, in The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2014), Vol. 5, pp. 153–169.
  36. V. Braun and V. Clarke, Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis, Qual. Res. Sport Exercise Health 11, 589 (2019).
  37. C. Wieman, Comparative cognitive task analyses of experimental science and instructional laboratory courses, Phys. Teach. 53, 349 (2015).
  38. D. J. Rybacki and D. L. Lattimore, Assessment of undergraduate and graduate programs, Public Relat. Rev. 25, 65 (1999).
  39. A. W. Astin, Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education, in College Student Development and Academic Life (Routledge, London, 2014), pp. 251–262.
  40. F. Martin, A. Ritzhaupt, S. Kumar, and K. Budhrani, Award-winning faculty online teaching practices: Course design, assessment and evaluation, and facilitation, Internet Higher Educ. 42, 34 (2019).
  41. STEM project-based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach, edited by R. M. Capraro, M. M. Capraro, and J. R. Morgan (Springer Science & Business Media, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 2013).
  42. A. E. Austin, Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career, J. Higher Educ. 73, 94 (2002).
  43. C. Wieman, Expertise in University teaching and the implications for teaching effectiveness, Evaluation training, Daedalus (Boston) 148, 47 (2019).
  44. C. Henderson, A. Beach, and N. Finkelstein, Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 48, 952 (2011).
  45. J. N. Carpenter and A. W. Lynch, Survivorship bias and attrition effects in measures of performance persistence, J. Financ. Econ. 54, 337 (1999).
  46. I. Krumpal, Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review, Qual. Quant. 47, 2025 (2013).
  47. B. Goldberg, G. Cochran, C. Henderson, M. Wittmann, D. Sachmpazidi, S. Woods, and E. Su, Inclusive Graduate Programs: An AGEP Pilot in Physics and Astronomy, Bulletin of the American Physical Society (2024).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010139– Published 10 May, 2024
  • Received 28 November 2023
  • Accepted 2 April 2024
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation