Part I – Written Comprehensive Exams

• 2005 Exam Coordinator: Dr. Watson
• Subject matter to include core PhD Program of Study areas:
• Critical Analysis: Take home article review
• History of IS: 3 hour in-class, closed book exam
• Philosophy of IS: 3 hour in-class, closed book exam
• Methodology – Quantitative: 3 hour in-class, closed book exam
• Methodology – Qualitative: 3 hour in-class, closed book exam
• Area questions to be coordinated by the faculty who last taught this course/seminar. Area coordinators should provide suggested assessment guidelines/criteria for graders. Graders should interact with area coordinators to submit questions, and to review final draft of questions.
• 2005 Area Coordinators:
• Critical Analysis: Dr. Schwarz (replacing Dr. Houston who is currently in Dean’s office)
• History of IS: Dr. Hirschheim
• Philosophy of IS: Dr. Hirschheim
• Methodology – Quantitative: Dr. Van Scotter
• Methodology – Qualitative: Dr. Pawlowski
• There will be at least two (volunteer/assigned) graders per area in addition to the Area Coordinator.
• The area coordinator will coordinate the development of the area exam, related grading scheme, acceptance of final exam questions, and assignment of area (final) aggregate score for each student. All graders in each area will participate in each step of this process.
• Scoring of Individual Exams – 5 point scale
• Each grader will assign one of the following grades for each question.
• 1 = superior pass
• 2 = good pass
• 3 = marginal pass
• 4 = fail
• 5 = bad fail
• Interpretation of Results – Individual Exams
• Area coordinators, in collaboration with area graders, should prepare an aggregate area exam score compiled from all area grader scores. First, an aggregate score for each question. Second an aggregate score for the entire area exam.
• Candidates are expected to achieve aggregate scores of 1-2.
• Aggregate scores between 2 and 3 represent the “gray” area.
• An aggregate score between 2 and 3 is cause for serious concern for the student’s lack of strength in this subject area.
• An aggregate score greater than 3 is unacceptable.
• Comprehensive Final Result – 5 point scale
• Coordinator will propose a Comprehensive Final Score based on compilation of Aggregate Area Exam Scores, and also discussion of graders.
• Interpretation of Results - Comprehensive Final
• If a candidate scores below a 3 on any of the Area Exams, the candidate will not advance to the Orals. The faculty will determine action.
• If the candidate’s Comprehensive Final Score is between 1-2, the recommendation is to proceed to the Orals
• If the candidate’s Comprehensive Final Score is between 2 and 3, remedial actions are likely required and student may be required to retake the comprehensive exams.
• An aggregate score greater than 3 is a failure. The student’s program of study may be terminated.
• The Exam Coordinator will present all aggregate scores to Faculty with recommendation.
• Candidates who must retake written exams are expected to perform significantly better than their first attempt. If a candidate fails to improve significantly on their second written exam, faculty will recommend termination of candidate’s PhD program of study.
• Stripped laptops for exam (Kari – ok for 2 laptops plus one backup)
• Thumb drive for backup during exam

Part II – Oral Comprehensive Exams

• Two hours room reservation
• Plan for maximum of 1.5 hour process (75 min. Q/A; 15 min. discuss/vote)
• Schedule for time to minimize (teaching) schedule conflicts
• Encourage ALL faculty to attend and participate
• Format
• 1^st round: round-robbin
• 2^nd round: random

-- continued --

2005 ISDS Comprehensive Exam Schedule:

Friday, September 30:

• Comprehensive process is approved
• Candidates are informed of the process
• Graders finalized

Friday, October 7:

• Candidates submit following information to Exam Coordinator:
• In terms of knowledge of the literature, identify two or three mainstream IS research areas that you are particularly well grounded in.
• For each of these areas, identify two or three “seminal” research articles that shaped your thinking in this area. You may provide a brief explanation as to why you chose these articles.
• For each of these areas, identify two or three research articles that you consider to be poor, in any sense. You may provide a brief explanation as to why you chose these particular articles.
• Exam Coordinator forwards information to Critical Analysis Area Coordinator and Graders.

Friday, October 14:

• Graders submit suggested questions to Area Coordinators

Friday, October 21:

• Area Coordinators submit draft exam questions and suggested assessment criteria to Graders. The 5 point scale described above should be used for grading.
• Area Coordinators should identify key sub-areas that candidates are expected to address (i.e., rough guidelines on expectations).
• Graders to provide timely feedback.

Wednesday, November 2:

• Area Coordinators finalizes questions with graders approval, and submits to Exam Coordinator.

Friday, November 4: Written Comprehensive Exam Take-Home

• Exam Coordinator distributes Critical Analysis article and article review questions to candidates.

Monday, November 7 - Tuesday, November 8: Written Comprehensive Exam In-Class

• Written comps to be held in ISDS offices (conference room and S.P. old office)
• History, Philosophy, Quantitative Methodology, Qualitative Methodology
• Exam Coordinator manages this process, collects exams, and distributes to graders.
• Exam Coordinator posts blank exam to Sharepoint for faculty access only.

Monday, November 14: Graded Exams Due

• Graders submit exam grades to Exam Coordinator.

Tuesday, November 15: Faculty Meeting

• Exam Coordinator presents consolidated report to All Faculty in faculty meeting.

Wednesday, November 16:

• Exam Coordinator communicates results of written exam to candidates

December 5 – December 6: Oral Exam

• Oral exam scheduled as appropriate – discussion, vote, decision, feedback to candidate

December 7:

• Exam Coordinator/ISDS Office communicates results to graduate school