Department of Kinesiology

APPENDIX B

PhD Degree Program
Approved 03/14/2024

All PhD students are required to submit a progress report to the Graduate Program Director annually. During the first two years of study, satisfactory progress is indicated by taking required and relevant elective courses, maintaining a GPA of >3.0 for all coursework, actively participating in research activities, and meeting department standards for teaching (for students with GTA positions). Active participation in research includes, but is not limited to, assisting with faculty-led research projects, initiating independent research projects, presenting at local and national research conferences, leading or assisting with manuscript preparation, and collaborating with other students and faculty within and/or outside of the department.

Doctoral students should establish their supervisory committee once they have completed 9 credit hours toward the doctoral degree. Students should consult with their major professor for guidance about potential committee members, and initiate discussions with potential committee members early in their program. The committee must include at least four members of the graduate faculty, at least one of which must be outside of the kinesiology department. Once established, the student should schedule a meeting with the full committee to discuss the student’s progress to date, dissertation plans, and the timeline for the preliminary exam. During this meeting, the committee will outline the general requirements and expectations for the preliminary exam. Specifically, the committee and student will agree on the expected format of the written component of the exam, and the committee will provide the student with their expectations about the depth of general knowledge to be examined during the oral exam.

The preliminary exam should be completed within one semester of completing all required coursework, or within one semester of completing 60 hours of credit towards the doctoral degree. Readiness for the exam should be determined in consultation with major professor and supervisory committee. This exam is designed for the supervisory committee to assess two crucial student attributes: (a) the breadth and depth of the knowledge that the student maintains in the major field, and (b) the potential and capacity the student displays for research. The committee will strive to make the process fair and equitable across examinations and will provide guidance the student needs to prepare for the examination process. Once the supervisory committee and the student decide when the examination is to be taken, the student should notify the Graduate School at least one month before the scheduled date.

Written and oral preliminary exams

Both written and oral examinations are required. The format and expectations for each are described in detail below.

Written exam: Students are generally expected to write a grant proposal for the written exam. The grant mechanism should be selected in consultation with the supervisory committee. The length and format of the proposal may vary, but it should be sufficient to demonstrate the depth and breadth of the student’s knowledge, the student’s capacity to conceptualize and design a research study, and the student’s ability to communicate effectively in writing. Specifically, at a minimum it should include a) background and rationale for the proposed project, b) research question(s) and hypotheses, c) detailed methods to be used to answer the research question(s), and d) proposed statistical analyses of collected data. The committee should clearly communicate to the student which aspects of the grant proposal are required for the preliminary exam (e.g., specific aims, budget, other forms). The student is permitted to consult with the major professor and/or other committee members to discuss the project idea, obtain general feedback regarding formatting, etc. However, all writing and the bulk of the intellectual work should be completed independently by the student. The student should submit the written proposal to the full committee a minimum of one week before the oral exam.

In some circumstances, alternate formats may be accepted for the written exam. These must be discussed and approved by the full supervisory committee. Alternate formats may include, but are not limited to, comprehensive scoping or systematic reviews on a topic relevant to the student’s proposed dissertation. As above, the review should demonstrate the depth and breadth of the student’s knowledge, the student’s capacity to identify and synthesize recent peer-reviewed evidence, and the student’s ability to communicate effectively in writing. Although the review may not include proposed research methods or analyses, the student should clearly articulate gaps in the field and future directions to move the field forward.

Committee members will read and critique the written exam, but will not provide feedback to the student prior to the oral exam.

Oral exam: The oral examination should include: 1) a research presentation by the student, and 2) questions from committee members to assess the depth and breadth of the student’s knowledge, based (in part) on the written exam/presentation and extending beyond it. At least one month prior to the exam, each committee member should identify a topic area on which he/she will examine the student. The student is encouraged to schedule individual meetings with committee members to solidify expectations on general knowledge prior to the exam. The committee member may provide readings, references, or other resources to the student.

During the oral exam, the student should deliver an oral presentation of the content of the written exam. Generally, the oral presentation should also include the student’s intended timeline and plans for completing the dissertation. The committee should provide guidance about the expected length of the presentation (generally 20-30 minutes), as well as any additional content to be included.

Following the presentation, each committee member will be called upon to question the student. Although the presentation of the written exam will serve as the foundation for questions, committee members may ask questions about any topic related to the student’s program of study, their past, current or future research, or other topics broadly related to the student’s presentation. Specifically, committee members should examine the student on topics previously communicated during meetings prior to the exam.

The oral exam will conclude when committee members have no further questions to evaluate the depth and breadth of the student’s knowledge. The student will then be excused to allow the committee to discuss the student’s performance on the oral and written exams, and to reach a decision on whether the student passed each portion of the exam. Specifically, committee members will evaluate the student’s performance on a scale from 1 (deficient) to 4 (outstanding) relative to the Kinesiology graduate student learning outcomes. Students must achieve a minimum score of 2 (acceptable) on all criteria to receive a passing vote from a committee member.

  1. Kinesiology Factual Knowledge: An advanced level of knowledge relevant to one’s individual field of study (exercise physiology or exercise behavioral science)
  2. Critical Thinking: The ability to digest, summarize and critique the scientific literature
  3. Research Methodology: The ability to apply the scientific method to design and conduct publishable high quality research
  4. Communication Skills: The ability to express oneself clearly, accurately and professionally in both written and oral forms

Once a decision has been made, the student is invited back into the room and informed of the results of the deliberation. A decision to pass the student will automatically convey recommendation of admission to candidacy for the degree. Both areas of the ballot should be signed affirmatively by committee members.

The committee will follow the Graduate School’s guidelines upon a first failure. Specifically, the committee may approve a second examination with no more than one dissenting vote. The second examination must be taken a minimum of three months after the initial failure. The student should consult with the supervisory committee to identify specific areas for improvement, outline specific steps to remedy deficiencies, and discuss a timeline for the second attempt.