texas tech university educational psychology program ... · responsible for teaching, whereas...

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY SPECIALIZATION 2013-2014 Handbook

1 Texas Tech University

Texas Tech University

Educational Psychology Program

Educational Psychology Specialization

2013-2014 MASTER’S STUDENT HANDBOOK



[Page Intentionally Left Blank]



Table of Contents

Program Overview ........................................................................................................................5

Distinctive Skills ...........................................................................................................................5

Trademark Outcomes ....................................................................................................................5

Career Opportunities in Educational Psychology .........................................................................5

Educational Psychology Faculty ...................................................................................................7

Admission to the Program and Specialization ............................................................................8

Conditional Admissions Policy .....................................................................................................9

Graduate Assistantships and Student Financial Support ........................................................10

Specialization Coursework, Course Sequence, and Timetable ................................................10

Coursework .................................................................................................................................10

Recommended Timetable ...........................................................................................................12

Benchmark Assessments .............................................................................................................12

Assessment Descriptions ............................................................................................................12

Remediation Plan ........................................................................................................................14

Transfer Credit and Entering with a Degree ............................................................................14

Induction for New Students ........................................................................................................14

Residency Requirement ...............................................................................................................15

Practica .........................................................................................................................................15

Master’s Committee Selection and Procedures ........................................................................15

Comprehensive Examinations ....................................................................................................15

Thesis .............................................................................................................................................16

Student Grievances ......................................................................................................................16



Appendices ....................................................................................................................................17

Appendix A: Scope and Sequence .............................................................................................18

Appendix B: Visual Diagram of the Program of Study .............................................................19

Appendix C: A List of Benchmark Assessments and Evaluation Tools ....................................20

Appendix D: Cast Study Analysis Rubric ..................................................................................21

Appendix E: Research Service Provider Rubric ........................................................................22



Program Overview

Distinctive skills. The educational psychology graduate program at Texas Tech

University provides a competency based program designed to assist students in developing a

comprehensive knowledge of learning, motivation, and human development in conjunction with

the development of skills that will enable them to effectively provide research services (e.g.,

program evaluation) to a diverse clientele such as school districts, universities, and educational

agencies. In particular, students will learn how to design and implement theory-driven research

studies and program evaluation plans that determine the effectiveness of an authentic product,

procedure, program, and/or curriculum. In order to render these services, the educational

psychology program is designed to assist students in developing the following competencies:

Professional Foundations

Research service providers communicate effectively in written, oral, and visual form.

Research service providers demonstrate effective interpersonal skills.

Research service providers comply with APA’s ethics code of conduct.

Research service providers use educational psychology theories and concepts to explain

and address educational issues and provide a psychological based account for maximizing

learning in a given situation.

Research service providers critically read, analyze and evaluate educational research and

know how to judge the usefulness of research findings for educational practice.

Planning and Designing Research Proposals and Evaluations

Research service providers develop effective research proposals and evaluations.

Research service providers devise data collection strategies to support the research and

evaluation questions.

Implementing the Research and Evaluation Plan

Research service providers can collect data using techniques that are suitable in answering

research and evaluation questions.

Research service providers can conduct the appropriate analysis to answer research and

evaluation questions.

Research service providers draw conclusions based on the results of the data analysis and

previous literature, concepts, theories, and research studies.

Research service providers effectively communicate the findings of the research study and

evaluation.

Trademark outcomes. The educational psychology program is designed to nurture the

development of research service providers who have a measurable impact on the clients they

serve. Graduates of the program will have a distinctive advantage over graduates of other EPSY

programs because they will have developed the distinctive skills that employers desire and will

be able to document the effectiveness of the research services that they provide.

Career opportunities in educational psychology. Graduates of the program often

pursue careers in the following areas:

Universities and colleges

Public schools and school districts

Educational testing companies

Private research and development organizations



Federal, state, and local educational agencies

Many individuals with doctorate degrees in educational psychology find employment in

universities and colleges. Depending on the institution, some educational psychologists are

responsible for teaching, whereas others are responsible for both teaching and conducting

research. Educational psychologists often teach courses on human development, learning and

cognition, and research methods and statistics. As educational researchers, educational

psychologists conduct research on a variety of topics related to educational psychology such as

learning strategy instruction, college learning, instructional technology, achievement motivation,

and adolescent development. Other educational psychologists find administrative positions in

higher education such as Director of Graduate Student Development, Director of Instructional

Technology, and Director of Institutional Research.

A background in educational psychology also qualifies people for jobs in public schools

and school districts. Educational psychologists are often employed as Directors of Assessment,

Accountability, and Evaluation. In this position an educational psychologist oversees

standardized achievement testing, coordinates school improvement plans, and evaluates

educational programs. These positions often require a strong emphasis in research,

measurement, and statistics.

In light of the increased emphasis on educational testing, educational psychologists are

often in high demand. An educational psychologist may find employment at educational testing

companies such as Educational Testing Service. Positions with testing companies include but

are not limited to the following: psychometrician, measurement statistician, research scientist,

and test developer. These jobs are often reserved for educational psychologists with an expertise

in research, measurement, and statistics.

Educational psychologists are also employed by federal, state, and local educational

agencies and private research and development organizations. Their job responsibilities in these

types of positions range from designing training and instructional programs to evaluating

educational programs.

To learn more about job opportunities in the field of educational psychology, please visit:

www.APA.org - contains information about the various careers in psychology

www.AERA.net - contains an updated list of academic and nonacademic job

openings

www.Chronicle.com - contains an updated list of academic and nonacademic job

openings



Educational Psychology Faculty

The Educational Psychology specialization faculty is comprised of 11 core

members. The individuals listed below make decisions for the specialization, serve as

advisors and dissertation chairpersons for educational psychology students, and teach

courses required in the Educational Psychology specialization course sequence.

Prospective students should examine the research interests of the faculty to obtain a more

detailed sense of faculty expertise and research areas (see the program website).

Susan Malone Back, Associate Professor (Ph.D., Temple University, MBA, University of

Denver) and Director, Office of Program Evaluation and Research Support. She is a Co-Principal

Investigator on the East Lubbock Promise Neighborhood project, responsible for data collection

and analysis. She has extensive experience in obtaining and managing grants from the National

Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Departments of Education,

Commerce, State, Defense, and Health and Human Services, as well as numerous foundations

including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Ford Foundation, Intel, Sun Microsystems

and Toyota.

Lucy Barnard-Brak, Associate Professor (Ph.D., Texas Tech University). Her research

currently focuses measurement and assessment issues for vulnerable populations, especially

individuals with disabilities. She currently enjoys refining the application of item response

theory models and the comparison of ROC curves to data from special populations.

Hansel Burley, Professor (Ph.D., Texas A&M University). He is former Associate Dean for

Graduate Education and Research, Associate Dean for Academics and Data, and Associate Dean

for Undergraduates for the TTU College of Education. He received this Ph.D. in Curriculum and

Instruction from Texas A & M University, College Station. His research focuses on the

antecedents to higher education remediation and the resilience of developmental education

students. He also examines diversity issues, particularly when related to college access and

success. Dr. Burley also studies institutional effectiveness, particularly how this is associated

with large database analysis. He has been a member of the Association for Institutional Research

and associated organizations. He is a past president of the Traditionally Black Colleges and

Universities—Special Interest Group (TBCU-SIG). He recently published Cases on Institutional

Research Systems, a casebook for institutional researchers.

Lee S. Duemer, Professor (Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh). He specializes in history of higher

education in the United States, and qualitative archival inquiry in education. Most recently he has

been working on examining the philosophical foundations of qualitative research.

Patricia H. Hawley, Professor (Ph.D., University of California, Riverside). Her research

focuses on the psychological underpinnings of human social power and social success. Her

model (i.e., Resource Control Theory; Hawley, 1999) integrates work from various disciplines

(e.g., developmental psychology, social psychology, peer relationships, and evolutionary theory).

As such, it challenges prevalent thought on aggression and social adaptation, as well as common

assumptions about gender and social status.



Currently her lab is looking at morality, aggression, power in relationships, and attitudes toward

evolutionary theory and its applications. All of their work is predicated on the assumption that

social dominance is a central organizing feature to social groups and as such has far reaching

implications for many domains of functioning. The most recent instantiation of this work has

taken us into the domain of academic climate and women’s professional development.

William Lan, Professor (Ph.D., University of Iowa). His research agenda includes psychological

processes of motivation and learning, more specifically, developing self-regulated learners in

regular and online learning environments. He is also interested in applying principles of positive

psychology in enhancing individual well-being.

Todd D. Little, Professor (Ph.D., University of California, Riverside). He is the founding

Director of the Institute for Measurement, Methodology, Analysis and Policy at Texas Tech

University. He founded and directed the Center for Research Methods and Data Analysis at the

University of Kansas. In 2009, he was elected President of APA’s Division 5 (Evaluation,

Measurement, and Statistics). He is a Fellow in AAAS, APA and APS. He organizes and teaches

in the internationally renowned “Stats Camps” each June (see statscamp.org for details).

David Richman, Professor (Ph.D., University of Iowa). He received his Ph.D. in school

psychology and minor in applied behavior analysis from the University of Iowa, and he

completed a research postdoctoral fellowship at the Johns Hopkins University School of

Medicine and the Kennedy Krieger Institute. Dr. Richman has previously been on faculty at the

University of Kansas School of Medicine, University of Maryland Baltimore County, and the

University of Illinois. Dr. Richman’s areas of research include: assessment and treatment of

problem behavior; phenotypic expression of genetic disorders correlated with intellectual

disabilities and severe behavior problems; family resiliency, parenting stress, familial quality of

life; and cortical reorganization post-behavior therapy.

Kamau Oginga Siwatu, Associate Professor (Ph.D., University of Nebraska). His research

areas have a broad focus on teaching, learning and diversity in K-12 educational settings. His

research focuses on examining the nature of teachers’ culturally responsive teaching and

classroom management self-efficacy beliefs and the factors that influence the formation of self-

efficacy beliefs. He is also interested in examining the role of educational psychology in

preparing culturally responsive teachers.

Paul Soto, Research Assistant Professor (Ph.D., Emory University). He completed his Ph.D. at

Emory University in Atlanta, GA under the mentorship of Dr. Jack McDowell and a postdoctoral

fellowship at the National Institute on Drug Abuse under the mentorship of Dr. Jonathan Katz.

Before coming to Texas Tech University, he was an Instructor in the Division of Behavioral

Biology in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Johns Hopkins

University School of Medicine in Baltimore, MD. His research is focused on the behavioral

effects of drugs with particular emphasis on discovery of potential pharmacotherapeutics for

diseases and disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease, autism, and addiction.



Tara Stevens, Associate Professor (Ed.D, Texas Tech University). Her areas of research focus

on self-perspectives in mathematics achievement and gender and cultural differences in

mathematics achievement.

Eugene Wang, Associate Professor (Ph.D., Texas A&M-Commerce), Program Coordinator for

Educational Psychology, and Associate Director of the Institute for Measurement, Methodology,

Analysis, and Policy (IMMAP). His research areas have a broad focus on individuals with

emotional and behavioral disorders, assessment of risk (particularly violence risk), and strategies

for reducing interpersonal violence. He is particularly interested in implementation of positive

behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) in at-risk populations, such as incarcerated youth.

Amanda Williams, Instructor (Ed.D., Texas Tech University). Her research interests include

statistics anxiety and instructor-student relationships.

Admission to the Program and the Specialization

Applying to the Texas Tech University College of Education is a two-step process. First,

prospective students must apply to the Graduate School. When beginning the application

process students will be given an eRaider ID and activation information from the graduate

school. Prospective students should submit the following materials when applying to the

graduate school:

Application Fee

Official Transcripts

GRE Scores which are no more than 5 years old at the time of application

TOEFL Scores (International Applicants Only)

Next, prospective students must officially apply to the College of Education. Prospective

students should submit the following materials when applying to the College of Education.

Statement of purpose to include:

o The prospective student’s interest in the field of educational psychology,

learning and career goals, and special skills, knowledge base, and/or abilities

o The names of faculty the student would like to work with

o A statement explaining the reasons for undergraduate Grade Point Average

(GPA) below 3.00 or graduate Grade Point Average below 3.50

Curriculum vitae (or resumé)

o Educational background

o Specialized training and licensure/certifications

o Work experience

o Conference presentations

o Publications

o Manuscripts in preparation

o Awards, fellowships and scholarships



Three letters of recommendation

o The three recommenders should include individuals with knowledge of the

prospective student’s academic performance.

Applications are reviewed on a rolling basis. Although the program will make admission

decisions as completed applications are submitted, students should comply with the following

deadlines to guarantee admission:

All materials submitted prior to June 1 for Fall admission

All materials submitted prior to October 1 for Spring admission

All materials submitted prior to March 1 for Summer admission

To ensure eligibility for graduate assistantships and scholarships, prospective students

should submit their application on or before October 1.

Upon admission, students will be assigned a temporary advisor to assist with financial

support applications, registration, and orientation.

Conditional Admission Policy

An applicant may be considered for conditional admission into the program for one of

two reasons. In each case, the conditions for full admission and the evaluation process may vary.

Failure to remove the condition as specified will result in the student being dropped from the

program.

Conditional admissions status may be granted to students who do not meet all admissions

requirements or have incomplete applications. From time to time, student’s applications are

incomplete due to missing letters of recommendations, a vague or poorly written statement of

purpose, and/or missing or outdated GRE scores. Students who are conditionally admitted for

one or more of these reasons must submit the required material prior to the end of the first

semester in the program. Once the application materials are submitted, the EPSY faculty will

reevaluate the applicant and forward their recommendation to the graduate school prior to the

start of the second semester of coursework. The recommendation may be either to award or deny

unconditional admission status.

Conditional admission status may also be granted to students in situations where the

EPSY faculty need additional information to adequately assess a student’s ability to perform

successfully in the doctoral program and/or whether the program is suited to meet the student’s

short-term and long-term career-related goals. Students who are conditionally admitted for this

reason will be required to satisfy specific conditions within the first 15 hours of coursework.

Enroll in a series of courses as specified by the program faculty and maintain a 3.0

GPA. These courses will be determined on an individual basis.



Enroll in EPSY 7000 during the second semester of coursework and actively

collaborate with an EPSY faculty member on planning or conducting a research

study.

Meet with the temporary advisor each semester to complete a degree plan and

identify the appropriate courses to take in the forthcoming semester.

Once these conditions have been satisfied, the EPSY faculty will meet to discuss the

student’s progress, ability to perform successfully in the program, and academic fit. Following

this evaluation, the EPSY faculty will forward their recommendation to the Graduate School.

Their recommendation may be either to award or deny unconditional admission status.

Occasionally, we conditionally admit students for both of the reasons described above.

In these situations, the student will be required to satisfy each condition as described. However,

the EPSY faculty will make their admission decision once the first 15 hours of coursework has

been satisfied.

Any grievances regarding the policy and/or the process should be brought to the attention

of the program coordinator (as described in the “student grievance” section of this handbook).

Graduate Assistantships and Student Financial Support

Students interested in assistantships and other financial support should submit

applications with the assistance of their temporary advisor. Although assistantships and financial

support are not guaranteed, the majority of students receive some form of support. The links

below provide information concerning student financial support.

Graduate Assistantship Application

(http://educfmk.educ.ttu.edu/forms/gaapp/home.aspx)

Jones Fellowship Program

(http://educgo.educ.ttu.edu/educweb/jonesfellowship/)

TTU Graduate School Supported Scholarships

(http://www.depts.ttu.edu/gradschool/scholarships/gradschoolscholarships.php)

Specialization Coursework, Course Sequence, and Timetable

Coursework. A minimum of 36 semester credit hours is required for the granting of a Master of Education in Educational Psychology. There are two basic plans for the master's degree.

1. Thesis option plan. A minimum of 33 hours of graduate work plus three hours of thesis research. The master's thesis is expected to represent independent work by the student, conducted under the supervision of a faculty committee. An oral defense of the thesis is required. Comprehensive examinations are not required under this option.



2. Non-thesis option plan. A minimum of 36 hours of graduate work without a thesis is required in addition to satisfactory completion of a comprehensive final examination. No examination may be held prior to the mid-point of the semester or summer term in which a student will complete all remaining courses on the degree plan.

The EPSY curriculum is divided into three interrelated phases. Each phase is designed to

assist students in developing the knowledge and skills that research service providers possess

(see the list of research service provider competencies that are associated with each course in

Appendix A).

Phase 1. Phase 1 courses are designed to develop the foundational knowledge and skills

needed to design and implement theory-driven research studies and program evaluation plans.

Students are required to complete the following Phase 1 courses:

Educational Foundations Requirement (3 hours; choose one of the following)

EPSY 5310: Philosophy of Education

EPSY 5314: History of Education

EPSY 5323: Cultural Foundation of Education

Research Tool Requirement (12 hours)

EPSY 5379: Introduction to Educational Research

EPSY 5380: Introduction to Educational Statistics

EPSY 5382: Qualitative Research in Education

EPSY 5385: Foundations of Educational Research

Content Core Requirement (9 hours)

EPSY 5330: Motivation in Educational Settings

EPSY 5331: Human Development in Education

EPSY 5332: Educational Psychology

Phase 2. Phase 2 courses are designed to provide students with an opportunity to apply

the knowledge and skills developed in Phase 1 to design and/or implement a theory-driven

research study or program evaluation plan in a controlled setting. Students are required to

complete the following Phase 2 courses:

Research Tool Requirement (9 hours)

EPSY 5303: Classroom Assessment

EPSY 5349: Program Evaluation 1

EPSY 5381: Intermediate Statistics

Phase 3. Phase 3 courses are designed to provide students with an opportunity to

apply the knowledge and skills developed in Phases 1 and 2 to provide research services (e.g.,

program evaluation) to prospective clients such as school districts, universities, and educational



agencies. Students are required to complete a minimum of 3 hours of the following Phase 3

courses:

EPSY 5393: Internship

EPSY 6000: Thesis

EPSY 7000: Research

Recommended timetable. The following is recommended timetable for full-time

students. This timetable was created with the following assumptions: (1) fall admission, (2) no

transfer credits, and (3) summer school attendance.

Level Year 1 Year 2

P1 24 hours*

P2 9 hours**

P3 3 hours***

Note: * A benchmark assessment will be administered upon completion of 21 P1 hours

(normally after the first year in the program). ** A benchmark assessment will be administered

upon completion of 12 P2 hours (normally during or after the first semester of the second year in

the program). *** A benchmark assessment will be administered upon completion of the P3

activity (normally during the last semester in the program).

Benchmark Assessments

Students are evaluated at multiple times during their progression through the Educational

Psychology specialization (see Appendix B). A list of each assessment and the rubric used to

evaluate students’ learning can be found in Appendix C

Assessment descriptions.

Phase 1.

Measurement, evaluation, and research assessment. This assessment is designed to

assess students’ foundational knowledge of measurement, evaluation, research methods, and

research ethics. The assessment will contain a minimum of 250 multiple-choice items. For

students’ convenience, the assessment will be administered in two phases. In each phase

students will have 4 hours to complete 125 items. More information is forthcoming regarding

the content covered in this assessment.



Educational psychology in context: Case study analysis. This assessment is designed to

assess students’ use educational psychology theories and concepts to explain and address

educational issues and provide a psychological based account for maximizing learning in a given

situation. Students will be given an educational case study and will complete the following

tasks: (1) write an executive summary, (2) answer questions specific to the case study, (3) define

the central issue that should be addressed, and (4) provide appropriate recommendations and

solutions. Students will also provide an oral presentation of their analysis to a group of EPSY

faculty and students. The scoring rubric that will be used to assess the case study reports can be

found in Appendix D.

Phase 2.

Data analysis and interpretation assessment. This assessment is designed to assess

students’ ability to apply the knowledge and skills developed in Phase 1 to analyze and interpret

quantitative data and communicate the findings effectively in written, oral, and/or visual form.

Students will be given one of the following activities to complete:

Students may be given a database and asked to generate research questions, identify

and conduct the appropriate data analysis, and interpret the data in writing and orally.

Students may be given an SPSS output and asked to interpret the output, and interpret

the results of the data analysis in writing and orally.

The scoring rubric that will be used to assess students’ work can be found in Appendix C and E.

Logic model assessment. This assessment is designed to assess students’ ability to

develop a logic model, which is a cornerstone to developing effective program evaluation

proposals. Students will be given a hypothetical (or real) program evaluation case study. Using

the information provided, students will develop a logic model - directions on constructing a logic

model are forthcoming. Once completed, the student will submit the model for grading and

orally present the model. The scoring rubric that will be used to assess students’ work can be

found in Appendix C and E.

Research protocol development. This assessment is designed to assess students’ ability to

design a theory-driven research study or program evaluation plan. Students will be given a

hypothetical (or real) problem that can be research empirically. Using the information provided,

students will develop a research protocol - an abbreviated research proposal. The proposal will

consist of the following:

Project Summary (Abstract)

Rationale and Background Information

Study goals (Purpose of the Study)

Detailed Methods of Data Collection

Data Management and Data Analysis

Duration of the Project

References

Appendix

o IRB Protocol

o Data Collection Protocol (including copies of measures)



The scoring rubric that will be used to assess students’ work can be found in Appendix C and E.

Phase 3. Students are permitted to complete this assessment if all of the Phase 1 and

Phase 2 assessments have been taken and passed. In addition, students must enroll in one of the

following courses: EPSY 5393, 6000, or 7000.

Research service and consultation project. This assessment is designed to assess

students’ ability to apply the knowledge and skills developed in Phases 1 and 2 to provide

research services (e.g., program evaluation) to prospective clients such as school districts,

universities, and educational agencies. Students will provide a research or consultation service

in one or all of the following areas: (1) research planning and study design, (2) data collection,

management, and analysis, and (3) report writing. The rubric that will be used to assess

students’ competencies can be found in Appendix C and E.

Remediation plan. Decisions regarding the appropriate remediation plan will be made at

the program level. A remediation plan for students who do not demonstrate mastery of the stated

learning objectives associated with each benchmark assessment will include one or a

combination of the following:

Repeat the relevant academic course

Attend specific course lectures in the weak area

Take an oral/verbal exam

Complete additional assignments

Take additional courses

Transfer Credit and Entering with a Degree

Students may transfer up to 6 hours of coursework if it was completed in the last 7 years

with a grade of “B” or better. Students interested in transferring credit should schedule an

appointment with their advisor and must submit associated syllabi and transcripts prior to

completion of the first year of specialization coursework.

Induction for New Students

Each fall the EPSY program offers a professional development course (i.e., EPSY 6100)

for new masters and doctoral students. All new doctoral students are required to take this course

their first year in the program. The purpose of this course is threefold. This course will (1)

provide students with an orientation to the program, (2) introduce students to EPSY faculty and

their research, and (3) provide students with an understanding of the EPSY field and related

professional development issues. During the course, students will be responsible for completing

a research ethics and APA style training module. With the help of their temporary advisors,

students will also submit a tentative draft of their program of study – a document that needs to be

officially submitted before completing the first year of coursework.

Residency Requirement



The minimum residence for the master’s degree is a full academic year or its equivalent of graduate work carrying residence credit. Part-time enrollment is evaluated on an individual basis.

Practica

To support students in developing the aforementioned research service provider

competencies, the EPSY program is designed to provide students with opportunities to

apply their skills in authentic, real life contexts under faculty supervision. With the

approval of their advisors, students will enroll in a minimum of 3 practicum credit hours

after completing the Phase 2 benchmark assessment; however, practicum experiences

will also be organized for specific coursework (e.g., EPSY 7000). All practicum hours

and experiences will be supervised by educational psychology faculty with students

meeting regularly for instruction, debriefing, and guidance. Students should read the

Educational Psychology Specialization Practicum Guide (forthcoming) for all policy and

procedures related to practica as well as further description of activities.

Master’s Committee Selection and Procedures

The master’s committee is comprised of two faculty members. Students should

identify the chairperson of their master’s committee, which must be one of the core

Educational Psychology specialization faculty members, upon the completion of the first

year of the specialization. Chairpersons provide mentoring and guidance throughout the

student’s progress in the course sequence and this support is extended to the

comprehensive examination or thesis processes. The remaining committee member,

comprised of a faculty member from whom the student has taken courses, should be

selected before coursework is completed. The chairperson will direct the comprehensive

examination or thesis through coordination with the other committee member.

Changes in master’s committee members must be approved by the master’s

chairperson. Students must complete a Master’s Chairperson Change form that requires

the signature of both the initial and replacement chairpersons. Students may request the

Master’s Chairperson Change form from the program coordinator.

Comprehensive Examination

Prior to the last semester of coursework, the student and chairperson will identify

the semester in which the comprehensive examination will be completed. The

comprehensive examination schedule is announced by the College of Education advising

office. Unless modifications are approved by the student’s committee, the examination is

given on campus without access to external resources, such as textbooks, notes, cell

phones, and or the Internet. The qualifying examination will cover the following four

core content areas: cognition, motivation, human development, and research,

measurement, and statistics. Comprehensive examinations are graded by the student’s

master’s committee. Students who fail the first administration may take the examination

only once more as a second failure results in removal from the Educational Psychology

program.



Thesis

Students are not required to complete a thesis due to the considerable coursework

required for preparation to take the licensure exam. However, students interested in

pursuing the Ph.D. may wish to complete a thesis in preparation for the dissertation

process. The thesis process allows students, with guidance from the master’s committee

chairperson and committee, to conduct research that uniquely contributes to the field of

educational psychology. Students completing a thesis will enroll for EPSY 6000, thesis

hours, after successful completion of coursework and the comprehensive examination.

Students must continue to enroll in thesis hours until their research is successfully

defended. Credit for thesis hours is provided at the end of each semester with a grade

assigned when the student passes an oral defense.

Student Grievances

In situations where students have a legitimate grievance regarding any aspect of their

graduate education, they have a right to exhaust all proper channels in resolving the complaint.

In order, these channels are: the program coordinator, the department chair, the associate dean of

graduate education, the dean of the academic college, and the dean of the Graduate School.



Appendices



Appendix A

Scope and Sequence

1 For masters students only

Research Service Provider Competencies Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Professional Foundations

Research service providers communicate effectively in written, oral, and visual form.

6349 (MM),

6304, 6305, 6301, 6349 (Special

Topics),

5393, 6000, 6349 (PE#2), 7000, 8000

Research service providers demonstrate effective interpersonal skills. 5310, 5314, 5323, 6349 (EPSY

Multicultural)

5393, 6000, 6349 (PE#2), 7000,

8000

Research service providers comply with APA’s ethics code of conduct. 5379, 5385, 5382 6304, 6349 (MM) 5393, 6000, 6349 (PE#2), 7000,

8000

Research service providers use educational psychology theories and concepts to explain and

address educational issues and provide a psychological based account for maximizing learning in a given situation.

5330, 5331, 5332, 6332, 6349

(Cognition), 6349 (EPSY Multicultural)

5393, 6000, 6349 (PE#2), 7000,

8000

Research service providers critically read, analyze and evaluate educational research and

know how to judge the usefulness of research findings for educational practice. EPSY 5310, 5314, 5379

Planning and Designing Research Proposals and Evaluations

Research service providers develop effective research proposals and evaluations. 5379, 5385, 5382 5349 (PE), 6304, 6305, 6349

(MM)

5393, 6000, 6349 (PE#2), 7000,

8000

Research service providers devise data collection strategies to support the research and evaluation questions.

5379, 5385, 5382 5349 (PE), 6304, 6305, 6349 (MM)

5393, 6000, 6349 (PE#2), 7000, 8000

Implementing the Research and Evaluation Plan

Research service providers can collect data using techniques that are suitable in answering research and evaluation questions.

6304, 6305, 6301, 6349 (Special Topics),

5393, 6000, 6349 (PE#2), 7000, 8000

Research service providers can conduct the appropriate analysis to answer research and

evaluation questions. 5380, 5381

53811, 6304, 6305, 6301, 6349

(Special Topics),

5393, 6000, 6349 (PE#2), 7000,

8000

Research service providers draw conclusions based on the results of the data analysis and

previous literature, concepts, theories, and research studies. 5380, 5381

53811, 6304, 6305, 6301, 6349

(Special Topics),

5393, 6000, 6349 (PE#2), 7000,

8000

Research service providers clearly present the results of the research and evaluation as

appropriate to the audience and accordingly to APA professional standards. 5380, 5381

6304, 6305, 6301, 6349 (Special

Topics),

5393, 6000, 6349 (PE#2), 7000,

8000

Research service providers effectively communicate the findings of the research study and

evaluation.

5393, 6000, 6349 (PE#2), 7000,

8000



Appendix B

Visual Diagram of the Program of Study



Appendix C

A List of Benchmark Assessments and Evaluation Tools

Benchmark Assessment Evaluation

1. Measurement, Evaluation, And Research

Assessment

Percentage of items correct. Cutoff score yet to be

determined.

2. Educational Psychology in Context: Case

Study Analysis

Case Study Rubric (Appendix D)

3. Data Analysis and Interpretation Assessment Research Service Provider Rubric Sections 3.2 and 3.4

(Appendix E)

4. Logic Model Assessment Research Service Provider Rubric

5. Research Protocol Development Research Service Provider Rubric Sections 1.1., 1.3, and 2

6. Research Service and Consultation Project Research Service Provider Rubric (selected sections)



Appendix D

Case Study Analysis Rubric

Quality Level

Components Insufficient (1-2) Proficient (3) Expert (4 -5)

Problem

Identification Demonstrates a limited, surface, or

superficial understanding of the

issue/problem in the case study

Demonstrates an understanding of the

issues/problem in the case study

Demonstrates a clear and deep

understanding of the issues/problem in

the case study

Content Knowledge

and Understanding Demonstrates a limited, surface, or

superficial understanding of the theory

suitable for analyzing the issue/problem

in the case study

The student fails to interpret and apply

theory and does not demonstrate

knowledge of relevant terminology

Case study responses contain several

critical factual errors and

misconceptions that need to be corrected

Demonstrates an understanding of the

theory suitable for analyzing the

issue/problem in the case study

The student interprets and applies

theory and demonstrates knowledge of

relevant terminology

Demonstrate mastery of theory

without any significant factual errors

Demonstrates a clear and deep

understanding of the theory suitable for

analyzing the issue/problem in the case

study

The student skillfully and insightfully

interprets and applies theory and

demonstrates knowledge of and

appropriate use of relevant terminology

Demonstrates mastery of theory without

factual errors.

Connections:

Theory and Practice Makes vague, little, or no connections

between the issue/problem and theory

Makes appropriate connections

between the issue/problem and theory

Makes appropriate and insightful

connections between the issue/problem

and theory

Recommendations Makes unrealistic and inappropriate

recommendations with limited or no

support from the information presented

in the case study and theory

Superficial, little or no action suggested

Makes realistic and appropriate

recommendations clearly supported by

the information presented and theory

Appropriate and well thought out

Makes realistic, appropriate, and

insightful recommendations clearly

supported by the information presented

and theory

Well documented and reasoned



Appendix E

Research Service Provider Rubric

Section 1: Professional Foundations

Exemplary (5) Proficient (3) Unsatisfactory (1)

1.1: Communication Written, oral, and visual forms of

communication are appropriate

for the intended audience

Highly responsive to audience

comments and questions

Appropriate responses to

questions

Superb organization; clear

introduction; main points well

stated and argued, with each

leading to the next point of the

talk; clear summary and

conclusion

Effective use of visual aids

enhance/add impact to the

presentation

Articulates ideas clearly and

concisely; presented neatly and

professionally; grammar and

spelling are correct; uses good

professional style

Written, oral, and visual forms of

communication are somewhat

appropriate for the intended

audience

Generally responsive to audience

comments and questions

Generally appropriate responses

to questions

Satisfactory organization; clear

introduction; main points are well

stated, even if some transitions

are somewhat sudden; clear

conclusion

Visual aids generally contributes

to the quality of the presentation

Articulates ideas; one or two

grammar or spelling errors per

page; style is appropriate for

audience

Written, oral, and visual forms of

communication are not

appropriate for the intended

audience

Avoids interactions with

audience

Responds to questions

inadequately or is not responsive

to questions

Lacks organization and some of

the main points and conclusions

are unclear

Visual aids detract from the

quality of the presentation

Text rambles, key points are not

organized; spelling or grammar

errors present throughout more

than 1/3 of paper; style is

inappropriate for audience

1.2: Interpersonal Skills Consistently demonstrates

sensitivity to cultural norms and

organizational practices

[insert consulting skill descriptor]

Demonstrates sensitivity to

cultural norms and organizational

practices


Insensitive to cultural norms and

organizational practices




1.3: Ethical Conduct Consistently adheres to APA’s

ethics code of conduct, especially

as it relates to Section 8:

Research and Publication

Methods, data, and narrative

indicate that the researcher

will/did exhibit ethical and due

regard for protecting the welfare

of those involved in the

research/evaluation.

Adheres to APA’s ethics code of

conduct, with minor

unintentional violations,

especially as it relates to Section

8: Research and Publication

Researcher will/did exhibit

ethical and due regard for

protecting the welfare of those

involved in the

research/evaluation.

Does not adhere to APA’s ethics

code of conduct, especially as it

relates to Section 8: Research and

Publication

The methods, data, or narrative of

the evaluation might be construed

as having ethical and human

protection violations.

1.4: Use of Theory Original, creative, insightful, and

innovative

Simple and elegant

Well conceived, logically

consistent, and internally

coherent

Identifies and critically analyzes

strengths and weaknesses

Uses more than one theory

Compares or tests competing

theories

Advances concepts

Develops, adds to, revises, or

synthesizes theory (ies)

Aligns with research question,

methods, and observations

Has broad applicability

Demonstrates a thorough

understanding of the theoretical

Complete and correct

Understands theory

Uses existing theory well

Informs the research question and

measures

Identifies where it works and

where it does not work

Demonstrates an acceptable


framework

Theory use is absent, omitted, or

wrong

Is misunderstood or

misinterpreted

Cannot explain it or why it is

being used

Uses inappropriately

Does not align with the research

question, literature review, or

methods

Demonstrates an inadequate


framework

1.5 Critical Consumer of Research Identifies and rigorously

evaluates all important evidence

Able to judge quality of research

based on critical review of

methodology, data, and analysis.

Shows strong understanding of

generally accepted standards of

practice and rigor through

references to leading

scholars/scholarship

Supports claims with research

evidence; two or more types of

sources are used

Supports claims with clear

research evidence from valid

sources

Identifies data and information

that counts as evidence but fails

to evaluate its credibility;

Little support for claims

Provides no support and/or

evidence for claims;

Uses unreliable sources

Does not distinguish between

fact, opinion, and value

judgments

Merely repeats information

provided;

Unable to offer conclusions about

strengths or weaknesses of



Provides new information for

consideration

Examines evidence by

questioning its accuracy,

precision, relevance, and

completeness

Reaches a hasty conclusion about

the validity of a source;

Uses some unreliable sources

Shows less ability to ground

conclusions in generally accepted

standards of practice and rigor.

scholarship

Lack of familiarity with generally

accepted standards of practice

and rigor. Lack of critical

thinking.

Section 2: Planning and Designing Research Proposals and Evaluations

2.1: Background to the

Research/Evaluation Well written

Brief, interesting, and compelling

Motivates the work

Has a hook

Provides clear statement of the

problem

Explains why the problem is

important and significant

Places the problem in context

Presents an overview of the

theory, methods, results and

conclusions

Lays out the study's implications

Provides a road map of the

report/proposal

Theoretical/conceptual

framework provided with breadth

and depth as to its explanation.

The use of existing literature is

comprehensive, thorough,

complete, coherent, concise, and

up to date (if applicable)

Shows critical and analytical

thinking about the literature (if

applicable)

Well written, but less eloquent

Is less interesting; has less

breadth, depth, and insight

Motivates the work, but less well

Poses a good question or

problem

Explains why the problem is

important and significant

Provides an overview of the

report/proposal

Theoretical/conceptual

framework provided but not

explained in any breadth or

depth.

The of existing literature is

comprehensive, but not

exhaustive (if applicable)

Provides a thoughtful, accurate

critique of the literature (if

applicable)

Shows understanding of the

command over the most relevant

literature (if applicable)

Poorly written and organized

Does not clearly state the

motivation for the work

Problem is not stated, is wrong or

trivial

The importance of the problem is

missing or not clearly explained

Does not provide or does not put

the problem in a clear context

Does not present an outline or

overview of the research

Does not provide an overview of

the report/proposal

Contains extraneous materials

Does not sufficiently place the

research/evaluation within a

theoretical/conceptual framework

The coverage of the literature is

missing, inadequate or

incomplete (if applicable)

Has not read enough and does

not cite enough sources (if

applicable)

Misinterprets or does not

understand the literature (if

applicable)

2.2: Research/Evaluation Design and

Data Collection Procedures The methods and techniques to

be used are clearly and fully

described and justified per

purpose and research/evaluation

questions

Original, clear, creative, an

Methods are described with some

adequacy but not appropriately

justified according to the purpose

and research/evaluation

questions.

Appropriate for the problem

The methods and techniques to

be used are not adequately

described or justified

Uses wrong method for the

problem

Uses method incorrectly



innovative

Provides thorough and

comprehensive description

Limitations of the design are

clearly described and explained.

Flows from research questions

and theory

Uses state-of-the-art tools,

techniques, or approaches

Applies or develops new

methods, approaches, techniques,

tools, devices, or instruments

Uses multiple methods, if

necessary

Uses existing methods,

techniques, or approaches in

correct and creative ways

Discusses why method was

chosen

Limitations of the design are not

explored with any breadth or

depth.

Methods do not relate to

question or theory

Is fatally flawed or has a major

confound

Does not describe or describes

poorly (insufficient detail)

A discussion of the limitations of

the design is incomplete,

inappropriate, or erroneous

2.3: Data Analysis Procedures Clearly links data analysis

procedures to research/evaluation

questions.

Correctly links data analysis

procedures to research/evaluation

questions.

Methods for analyzing the data

are clear and appropriate.

Assumptions of the data analyses

are explained accurately.

Methods for analyzing data are

explained so that the particular

audience can understand them

without too much difficulty.

Links data analysis procedures to

research/evaluation questions,

although the connection is not

always clear or adequately

explained.

Correctly links data analysis

procedures to each

research/evaluation question.

Analytic methods are reasonable

but contain some errors and

omissions.

Describes some assumptions

associated with the data analysis

with some accuracy.

Provides some explanation of

data analysis for audience.

The link between data analysis

and research/evaluation questions

is unclear.

Incorrectly or insufficiently links

data analysis procedures to

research/evaluation questions.

Analytic methods lack detail and

include notable errors and

omissions.

Does not explain whether

assumptions associated with the

data analysis have been met (e.g.,

normality).

Explanation of data analysis is

not comprehensible to the

audience.

Section 3: Implementing the Research and Evaluation Plan

3.1: Data Collection Strategies Data collection strategies are

executed correctly and follows

best practice

Data collection strategies are

executed correctly with minimal

mistakes

Data collection strategies are

poorly executed and flawed

3.2: Data Analysis Original , insightful

Uses advanced, powerful,

cutting-edge techniques

Analyses is sophisticated, robust

Analysis is thorough, appropriate,

and correct

Uses standard methods

Links results to questions and

Analysis is wrong, inappropriate,

or incomplete

Data are wrong, insufficient,

fudges, fabricated, or falsified



and precise

Sees complex patterns in data

Iteratively explores questions

raised by analyses

Results are usable, meaningful,

and unambiguous

Presents data clearly and cleverly

theory

Substantiates the results

Data do not answer the question

Cannot distinguish between good

data and bad data

Cannot discern what is important

or explain the results

Includes extraneous information

and material

Has difficulty making sense of

data

3.3: Presentation of Findings Results are appropriately

presented to both audience and

according to professional

scholarly standards.

Presentation of results is

organized and transitions in a

meaningful narrative.

The selection of results presented

may be considered as the most

salient to the study.

Tables and figures are provided

and used to supplement

explanations in text.

Results are somewhat

appropriately presented to either

the audience or according to

professional scholarly standards

but not both.

Presentation of results is

somewhat organized that the

narrative progresses in a

meaningful way.

There is a selective presentation

of results that are salient but still

not selecting the most salient.

Tables and figures are provided

yet not explained in detail.

Results are not appropriately

presented to the particular

audience or according to the

professional scholarly standards.

Presentation of results is not

organized in a meaningful

narrative that transitions

smoothly.

Results presented without

reference to what may be

considered most relevant to that

particular study.

Tables and figures are neither

provided nor sufficiently

explained in text.

Tables and figures are used to

replace explanation of results

rather than supplement.

3.4: Interpretations/Conclusions Short, clear and concise

Makes proper inferences

Provides plausible interpretations

Discusses limitations

Refutes or disproves prior

theories or findings

Interesting, surprising, and

insightful

Summarizes the work

Refers back to the introduction

Ties everything together

Explains what has been

Provides a good summary of

results

Refers back to the introduction

States what has been done

Ties everything together

States its contribution

Identifies possible implications

Discusses limitations

Identifies some future direction

Context of the study is not fully

reiterated in a clear and concise

manner

Inadequate or missing

Interpretation is not objective,

cogent, or correct

Interpretation is too simplistic

Makes improper inferences

Overstates the results

Summarizes what has already

been said

Repeats the introduction

Does not tie things up

Does not understand the results

or what has been done



accomplished

Underscores and explains major

points and findings

Discusses strength, weaknesses,

and limitations

Raises new questions and

discusses future directions

Context of the study is reiterated

in a clear and concise manner

Findings are explained clearly

and coherently according to each

research question.

Conclusions are both tied to

empirical evidence and explained

thoroughly with respect to the

context of the study/evaluation

If appropriate, recommendations

are explained as founded in both

evidence from the data collected

and the extant literature.

Findings are explained with some

depth according to each research

question.

Conclusions are tied to empirical

evidence but not explained.


are explained with some

foundation in either evidence

from the data or the extant

literature but not both.

Claims to have proven or

accomplished things that have

not been proven or accomplished

Does not draw conclusions

Does not address the significance

or the implications of the

research

Does not address the limitations

of the study

Does not discuss future research

directions

The context of the study is not

reiterated

The explanation of findings does

not clearly or coherently answer

research questions.


are not sufficiently founded in

either the data evidence or the

extant literature.

texas tech university educational psychology program ... · responsible for teaching, whereas...

Documents