1. EDUC 400A, Introduction to Statistical Methods in Education

2. EDUC 400B, Statistical Analysis in Education: Regression

3. EDUC 450A , Qualitative Analysis in Education

4. One research methods course chosen by the student in consultation with their advisor (course must be at least 3 units, be at or above the 200 level, and have a research methods focus)

5. Advanced Research Methods (at least one course)

Research Methods Core

Doctoral students must complete a Research Methods Core within their first two years of the program.

Students who take 400B are responsible for mastering the content of EDUC 400A. Students should consult with their advisors at the beginning of their first year about whether they need to take EDUC 400A to prepare for 400B adequately.

Students are encouraged to complete the Research Methods Core as soon as possible because their Qualifying Paper, due at the end of the second year or sixth quarter, will depend upon methodology skills and expertise acquired in these courses.

Students interested in further methods course offerings may explore the GSE Qualitative Course Guide and the GSE Quantitative Course Guide. Please note, not all courses will be offered every year. The most up-to-date class scheduling information can be found on Navigator or Explore Courses.

Each of the School’s three program Areas (CTE, DAPS, and the subplans within SHIPS) and the cross-area specializations (LSTD and RILE) require specific courses, depending upon a student’s emphasis or concentration. See the applicable Area sections for more details.

All doctoral First-Year Review committees in the GSE must have two or three faculty reviewers. At least one GSE faculty must be active on the Stanford Academic Council (AC). A committee member may be a GSE faculty retiree (i.e., emeritus) or an active Academic Council member from another Stanford department or school. This does not require special approval.

Situations other than the above are exceptions and require the Area Chair and Associate Dean of Educational Affairs approval. Exceptions include having fewer than two members who are active GSE AC members or adding a member who is a Stanford lecturer, a faculty member at another university, or a PhD holder from outside the academy (i.e., not an active member of the Stanford AC). The student’s advisor should email the Associate Dean of Educational Affairs and Area Chair requesting any exceptions to this policy and include a rationale statement (e.g., the non-AC member offers an area of expertise that is relevant to the review and that is not readily available from the current faculty).

The First-Year Review Committee may advise a student against continuing in the program. If a student wishes to petition such a decision, then the matter will be brought before the Area Committee, which makes a recommendation to the Associate Dean of Educational Affairs for action. If a student wishes to appeal the Area Committee’s decision, a written request can be made to the Area Chairs in Education (ACE) committee via the Assistant Dean for Student Affairs. The Committee will independently review the student’s portfolio materials, academic progress information, and faculty evaluations. ACE will inform the student and respective faculty members of its decision.

Registration (i.e., enrollment) is required for any quarter during which a degree requirement is completed, including the First-Year Review.

Students may petition for an extension of the First-Year Review deadline to the fourth quarter of enrollment. The student should discuss this option with their advisor and then email the Doctoral Programs Officer explaining why they cannot complete the Review by the published deadline, the length of the requested extension (usually one quarter), and the proposed Review completion date. The program advisor should also email a statement of support to the Doctoral Programs Officer. Additional supporting documentation may be requested depending upon the nature of the request (e.g., Student Disability Resource Center support for disability-related extensions). Both emails and supporting documentation must be received a few business days before the last Area Committee meeting of the student’s third quarter of enrollment, which is usually spring quarter. The Area Committee and Chair will review the request for an extension and render a decision.

All doctoral Second-Year Review committees in the GSE must have at least three faculty reviewers. At least two GSE faculty must be active on the Stanford Academic Council (AC). A third committee member may be a GSE faculty retiree (i.e., emeritus) or an active Academic Council member from another Stanford department or school. This does not require special approval.

Situations other than the above are exceptions and require the Area Chair and Associate Dean of Educational Affairs approval. Exceptions include having fewer than two members who are active GSE AC members or adding a member who is a Stanford lecturer, a faculty member at another university, or a PhD holder from outside the academy (i.e., not an active member of the Stanford AC). The student’s advisor should email the Associate Dean of Educational Affairs and Area Chair requesting any exceptions to this policy and include a rationale statement (e.g., the non-AC member offers an area of expertise that is relevant to the review and that is not readily available from the current faculty).

The second-year review aims to assess a student’s preparation for dissertation research and command of the research area, identify remaining training needs, and determine whether the student should be advanced to candidacy. Doctoral students are expected to complete their second-year review/qualifying paper and advance to candidacy before the first day of the seventh quarter (typically autumn quarter of the student’s third year); see the Stanford Graduate Academic Policies and Procedures, section 4.6. This policy aims to help assure timely progress toward completion of the PhD. With permission from the advisor and area chair, students may petition for an extension of the second-year review deadline to the seventh quarter of enrollment. If students require an extension, they must fill out the GSE Second Year Review Extension Form, have their advisor and area chair review and sign it, and submit it to the Doctoral Programs Officer by the first week of classes of the seventh quarter. Failure to successfully complete the review by the end of the seventh quarter will lead immediately to a review of program status by the Associate Dean of Student Affairs and may result in suspension of doctoral funding and/or dismissal from the program.

There are Area-specific requirements for the review. Students must meet with their advisor several weeks before the review to discuss expectations, scheduling, and portfolio due date. Committee membership requirements are discussed in the Committee Composition for First- and Second-Year Reviews section.

Registration (i.e., enrollment) is required for any quarter during which a degree requirement is completed, including the Second-Year review. 

A doctoral dissertation makes an original contribution to knowledge, as defined in a discipline or an interdisciplinary domain, and addresses a significant researchable problem. Not all problems are researchable, and not all are significant. Problems that a mere descriptive exercise can solve are inappropriate for the PhD dissertation. Acceptable problems are those that:

• Pose a puzzle to the field at a theoretical, methodological, or policy level

• Make analytical demands for a solution rather than mere cataloging or descriptive demands

• Can yield a reasonable research methodology

The doctoral dissertation advisor, reading committee, and oral exam committee provide further guidance and details about dissertation content and format. The University Registrar publishes general formatting and submission guidelines. The American Psychological Association (APA) publication guidelines typically apply to GSE doctoral dissertations but are not required if the advisor and relevant committees determine that an alternative and academically acceptable protocol is more appropriate.

Published Papers and Multiple Authorship

Including published papers in a dissertation is the prerogative of the major department. Where published papers or ready-for-publication papers are included, the following criteria must be met:

1. There must be an introductory chapter that integrates the general theme of the research and the relationship between the chapters. The introduction may also include a literature review relevant to the dissertation topic that does not appear in the chapters.

2. Multiple authorship of a published paper should be addressed by clearly designating, in an introduction, the dissertation author’s role in the research and production of the published paper. The student must contribute majorly to the research and writing of papers in the dissertation.

3. There must be adequate referencing of where individual papers have been published.

4. Written permission must be obtained for all copyrighted materials; letters of permission must be uploaded electronically in PDF form when submitting the dissertation. See the following website for more information on using copyrighted materials: http://library.stanford.edu/using/copyright-reminder.

5. The submitted material must be in a form that is legible and reproducible, as required by these specifications. The Office of the University Registrar will approve a dissertation if there are no deviations from the standard specifications that prevent proper dissemination and utilization of the dissertation. If the published material does not correspond to these standards, it will be necessary for the student to reformat that portion of the dissertation.

6. Multiple authorship has implications concerning copyright and public release of the material. Discuss copyright clearance and embargo options with your co-authors and your advisor before preparing your thesis for submission.

Autumn Quarter of second year

See the First-Year Review section for review requirements that apply to all Areas. The CTE review portfolio should contain the following materials:

• A selection of two or three papers written by the student during their first year in the doctoral program

• A one- to two-page summary or outline of possible research areas, possible research questions, and possible design for Qualifying Paper

  • The final product for EDUC 424 may be used instead of the one- or two-page summary or outline if the First Year Review is held late enough in the spring quarter. Students may use the one- or two-page summary described above if the First Year Review is held before the final paper for EDUC 424 is due. During the First Year Review, faculty will provide feedback on the research area and questions, including scope, and help students think about a feasible, small study they can conduct in their second year. This study will be the basis for the Qualifying Paper and Second Year Review (see below).

• A transcript of the first two or three quarters of work at Stanford (an unofficial transcript printed from AXESS is acceptable)

• The preliminary GSP, to be reviewed and signed by the program advisor(s) at the first-year review

• The Preliminary Review Evaluation forms, located in the “Forms” section of the GSE website

Students are responsible for assembling copies of this portfolio and delivering them two to three weeks before the review to the faculty members participating. Students should check with faculty to determine how far before the review meeting the portfolio should be delivered and whether faculty request a hard copy or an emailed version.

The student’s advisors (or advisor and at least one other faculty member selected by the advisor and the student) will meet to discuss and review the portfolio. The review will conclude with an appraisal of the portfolio and assessing the student’s prospects for completing the doctoral program. The student’s primary advisor will complete a Preliminary Review Evaluation form based on a personal review and the other reviewer’s feedback from the First-Year Review. The student will forward the signed GSP and Preliminary Review Evaluation form to the Doctoral Programs Officer. After the Doctoral Programs Officer has reviewed the signed preliminary GSP and the First Year Review committee evaluations, the results will appear on the student’s record on Axess. If the preliminary GSP is not approved, it will be returned to the student with a request for the student to make the required additions and/or corrections. After the appropriate changes have been made in consultation with the advisor, the GSP should be returned to the Doctoral Programs Officer for further review.

The Second-Year Review is the qualifying process for advancement to doctoral candidacy. (See the Second-Year Review section for review requirements for all Areas.) It is also known as the Sixth-Quarter Review. A committee of three faculty members appraises the student’s research skills and preparation for work on the doctoral dissertation. The Second-Year Review should be scheduled before the first day of the seventh quarter (see the Second-Year Review section for more details on this policy). It is possible to request an extension with advisor approval to do the Second-Year Review during the seventh quarter; see the Doctoral Forms page for the Second-Year Review Extension form. Note: The Second-Year review and Dissertation Proposal Hearing cannot happen within the same meeting.

For the Second-Year Review, the primary advisor and co-advisors or two other faculty members selected by the advisor and the student (three faculty members total) will review a portfolio of material, including the following:

• A Qualifying Paper, the requirements of which are outlined below

• The CTE Second-Year Review forms, which can be obtained from the GSE website

• Unofficial transcripts from AXESS

• A schedule for remaining degree work, which includes a time frame for the dissertation proposal, research, oral exam, and dissertation submission

• A list of possible faculty members to serve on the Dissertation Reading Committee ( if the Second-Year Review Committee is identical to the Reading Committee, students may take the Doctoral Dissertation Reading Committee form with them to the review to obtain the signatures of the committee members)

• The preliminary Graduate Study Program (GSP), a copy of which can be obtained from the Doctoral Programs Officer, plus a newly updated final GSP for Review Committee approval. Because course offerings, academic interests, and goals change, the preliminary GSP can differ from the final GSP, with Committee approval.

The doctoral qualifying paper (or QP) has two purposes: The first is to provide the student with direct experience in conceiving, designing, carrying out, and writing up an original piece of research before the student sets out on their dissertation. The second is to demonstrate that the student is capable of undertaking a doctoral dissertation that meets the academic standards of this university. (See "Guidelines for CTE Qualifying Paper" for more detailed information about the content and expectations for the QP.) See in FAQs below, "Where can I find examples of successful QPs?" for location of guidelines on the GSE site.

The qualifying paper (QP) must be a work of original research. In the QP study, the student should address a research question by collecting and analyzing original data, primary materials, or an existing data set. In structure, format, and length, the QP should be modeled on articles in a scholarly journal that the student, in consultation with the advisor, has identified as appropriate for the research. The student should be able to identify at least one published article that has served as a guide or model for the present paper. The QP should adhere to the publication guidelines of the identified journal; thus, the length and format of papers may vary. Except in exceptional circumstances, the QP should not exceed 60 double-spaced pages.

The committee reviewing the QP can reach one of the following four possible decisions:

• Satisfactory or better completion of the requirement

• Acceptable with completion of revisions, as agreed upon by the committee and provided to the student in writing, to the satisfaction of the advisor

• Requiring revision and resubmission for review by the committee. The resubmission must be submitted by __________ (due date); students should submit a cover memo explicitly indicating how the revisions addressed concerns revealed during the review. The Office of Academic Services will be notified that the student is required to re-submit if s/he wishes to be considered for advancement to candidacy

• Failure to demonstrate the capacity necessary to proceed to the dissertation for reasons agreed to by the committee and attached to the CTE Qualifying Review Summary Sheet

Preparing for and Writing the QP

Although students are encouraged to think about possible research topics from the time they begin the doctoral program, work on the QP commences in the spring of the first year in EDUC 424. In that course, students will read extensively in areas that they would like to explore for possible QP research topics. Students will read articles in detail, study how educational researchers report their findings and review research in an area of interest. By the end of that course, students should be familiar with at least one area in some depth, although not necessarily exhaustively. At a minimum, students will have identified possible questions they might pursue in initial study designs. Depending on how clear or focused the students’ research interests are, they may also be able to begin drafting a proposal for the possible study.

Over the summer, after the first year, students should read extensively about possible research areas and think about a study they could design to answer an interesting and valuable question in one of these areas. In the fall of the second year, students will take EDUC 466. This course provides continued support as students shape research questions and design a study to address them. Students read published articles closely to understand the genre of academic writing in education. At the end of this course, students produce an approximately 5-8,000-word proposal that justifies and describes the study they will conduct for their QP.

The timeline and milestones outlined above reflect typical progress toward completion of the QP. However, students enter the program with varying degrees of clarity about their research interests and differences in prior research experience. Progress on the QP will differ because of these factors and other individual differences.

FAQs

What should be the scope of a QP study? The QP study should be fairly modest in scope. For many QP studies, you should be able to collect all data in approximately a quarter, most likely in winter of your second year, although some students begin in late fall or spring. You can also do a QP with an existing dataset, so you will not have to collect your data. As with all other questions about the QP, check with your advisor.

Where can I find examples of successful QPs? There is a QP archive at https://ed.stanford.edu/academics/doctoral/cte (go to the bottom of the page and log in with your SUNnet ID) where successful QPs have been posted. Ask your advisor if they have examples of successful QPs you can see. Remember that different advisors can have different length, scope, and other feature criteria. Be sure to check with your advisor regarding QPs they consider useful exemplars.

Does QP have to be a pilot for the dissertation? No. It can be, but it’s not required.

After 466, is there a course that supports writing up the QP? Not specifically. If there is interest among students, an individual faculty member might agree to meet as a group, during the winter and/or spring quarters. Check with your advisor about enrolling in directed research units with your advisor while you work on your QP. This will give you more time to focus on your QP.

Is there an expectation that QPs will be submitted for publication? No, submission for publication is not an expectation. You are encouraged to try and publish your QP if you wish, but it’s not an expectation.

If my QP is not a pilot for my dissertation, how will the QP help me with my dissertation? Even if it’s not a pilot, the QP should help in at least two ways: First, the QP will provide experience in conceptualizing, planning, and carrying out an original piece of research. This will be extremely helpful when it comes time for your dissertation research. Second, your dissertation can comprise 3 or 4 standalone and ready-to-submit-for-publication manuscripts rather than a single lengthy write-up of a study*. One of these standalone manuscripts could be your QP or a paper based on your QP. Even if you do not publish your QP or include it as part of your dissertation, conducting and writing a QP will provide you with useful experience in producing this type of writing.

* Consult with your advisor about the appropriate structure for your dissertation. You have two basic options: the typical monograph or 3-4 standalone, close-to-submission-ready papers. The following guidelines for including published or “ready-for-publication papers” as part of your dissertation come from the Registrar’s Office.

Published Papers and Multiple Authorship

Including published papers in a dissertation is the prerogative of the major department. Where published papers or ready-for-publication papers are included, the following criteria must be met:

1. There must be an introductory chapter that integrates the general theme of the research and the relationship between the chapters. The introduction may also include a literature review relevant to the dissertation topic that does not appear in the chapters.

2. Multiple authorship of a published paper should be addressed by clearly designating, in an introduction, the dissertation author’s role in the research and production of the published paper. The student must contribute majorly to the research and writing of papers in the dissertation.

3. There must be adequate referencing of where individual papers have been published.

4. Written permission must be obtained for all copyrighted materials; letters of permission must be uploaded electronically in PDF form when submitting the dissertation. A sample permission letter is included in this packet on page 16.

5. The submitted material must be in a form that is legible and reproducible, as required by these specifications. The Office of the University Registrar will approve a dissertation if there are no deviations from the standard specifications that prevent proper dissemination and utilization of the dissertation. If the published material does not correspond to these standards, it will be necessary for the student to reformat that portion of the dissertation.

6. Multiple authorship has implications concerning copyright and public release of the material. Discuss copyright clearance and embargo options with your co-authors and your advisor before preparing your thesis for submission.

The Preliminary Review comprehensively reviews all aspects of a student’s graduate work. The review allows the faculty to consider the breadth and depth of the student’s preparation and the adequacy of plans for coursework, research experience, and professional training. The Preliminary Review intends to facilitate progress by providing informative and constructive feedback about academic and research accomplishments and plans. Most students complete the Preliminary Review satisfactorily, usually with some recommendations or requirements for additional and/or change in coursework. Results are posted on the student’s Axess record once satisfactorily addressed, as determined by the DAPS Area Chair in consultation with the student’s Academic Advisor.

DAPS faculty have shared that the first-year review is one of their favorite annual experiences –– a chance to connect with younger minds, share advice and perspectives, and support students in the early phase of their doctoral journeys. The first-year review is intended to be a constructively supportive and celebratory, rather than an evaluatory, event. Indeed, many faculty have remarked that it is more accurately described as a discussion than a formal review. This meeting is intended as a chance for students to reflect on the evolution of their research interests during their first year of the program, attempt to articulate those interests informally in writing to their faculty mentors, and ask questions of their faculty mentors about their strategic direction going forward. 

The standard DAPS preliminary review lasts 60 minutes. Toward the end of the review, students can expect to be asked to step out briefly while faculty converse and then invited to rejoin the meeting for final takeaways.

See general First-Year Review requirements that apply to students in all GSE Areas.

The Portfolio

The portfolio should contain the following materials in the order specified below. Students may assemble hard copies of the portfolio or distribute electronic copies depending on the faculty member’s choice. A portfolio copy should be delivered to each student’s First-Year Review Committee member at least two weeks before the Review date.

Portfolio Contents

• A one-page cover letter, addressed to the preliminary review committee, that articulates the 3-5 most pressing questions that the student would like to discuss during their review. Example cover letters (and samples of all other portfolio materials) can be found in the DAPS doctoral students’ shared Google Drive, which is available to all DAPS students upon program entry. 

• A copy of the original Statement of Purpose from the admissions application which can be obtained from the Doctoral Programs Officer.

• An unofficial Stanford transcript printed from AXESS.

• An explanation for any incomplete grades and a plan for fulfilling incompletes.

• A preliminary Graduate Study Program (GSP). The GSP should include the courses required of all DAPS students as outlined in the above sections. The first and second advisors must sign the original copy of the GSP during the Review.

• A description of previous and current professional activities. This statement, typically two to three pages long, should describe developing capabilities as a researcher and teacher. It should cover (1) experiences to date, (2) priorities for further development, and (3) future plans.

• Curriculum vitae. This will include post-secondary degrees earned and in progress, professional experiences, professional honors or awards received, publications and/or presentations, professional memberships, significant professional services, and other relevant information.

• Major course papers and exams including, but not restricted to, all such products from courses offered by the DAPS faculty. When possible, submit copies with original comments from the course instructor.

• Accompany the writing sample set with a brief statement explaining why each was chosen for inclusion. Explanations might refer to the kinds of writing proficiencies each piece illustrates, specific areas of interest or competence the piece addresses, or perhaps particular problems students would like to discuss with the Preliminary Review committee. A minimum of three writing samples should be included. There is no maximum, but submitting an excessive amount of material is not helpful. The set of writing samples should be chosen to give a good picture of the student’s developing professional competencies, especially proficiency in academic writing.

• Research reports include publications, conference presentations, technical reports, and any other papers on which you are an author or co-author.

• Any other relevant scholarly or professional documents (e.g., certificates from professional workshops attended).

Work Statements

In addition to the materials outlined above, the student may arrange up to two work statements (evaluation letters) from faculty or other staff who will not be present at their preliminary review but with whom the student has done substantive research or other relevant work. These work statements should address the nature and caliber of their work. Work statements typically have two parts: one paragraph describing the student’s strengths and the nature of their experiences to date and a second representing areas where further growth or improvement is desirable. Work statements can be given directly to the student; they are not confidential. Email is acceptable. 

If requesting statements from faculty outside of DAPS, some suggested wording for a statement request might be:

This is a request for a brief statement regarding my work with you. This statement will be reviewed by faculty in the Developmental and Psychological Studies (DAPS) Program for the purposes of the Preliminary Review and will be included in my review portfolio. The Preliminary Review in DAPS is a collaborative process involving students as well as faculty, and so I will also read the statement you provide. Work statements typically have two parts: one paragraph describing my strengths and the nature of my experiences to date, and the other describing areas where further growth or improvement is desirable. It would be helpful if your comments documented the nature of my work with you and the qualifications and skills involved. An email response is all that is required.

Student Procedures

• Obtain advisor approvals and sign the GSP.

• Assemble Preliminary Review materials during the third quarter and review them with the primary and secondary advisors before submitting them to the Preliminary Review Committee.

• Schedule the review date and communicate the date and committee composition to the Doctoral Programs Officer.

• The committee should include the primary and secondary advisors and one additional faculty member chosen in collaboration with the primary advisor. Committee composition rules are outlined in the Dissertation Reading Committee document.

• Provide each member of the Review Committee with a copy of the portfolio at least two weeks before the Review date.

• On the scheduled date, meet with your three-member committee to discuss your progress in the program. The portfolio is the central focus of this meeting.

• Recommendations and requirements are formulated based on discussion, recorded on the Preliminary Review Summary Sheet, and signed by all faculty attending. Unless otherwise agreed upon, the student’s primary advisor is the default person responsible for filling out the Preliminary Review Summary Sheet.

• Submit the signed Preliminary Review Summary Sheet and preliminary GSP to the Doctoral Programs Officer.

Students should retain a complete copy of their portfolios. It will be necessary to update and submit the Preliminary Review portfolio as part of the sixth quarter Specialty Review.

Because DAPS follows an apprentice research training model, students are expected to become engaged in a research project during their first year in the program. This can be research carried out with the student’s advisor or another faculty member. The research can take several forms, for example, original data collection on a project the advisor is conducting, becoming a member of a research team and taking responsibility for some part of a research project, and doing secondary analysis on a data set provided by a faculty member.

As a continuation of their first-year program, all DAPS/LSTD students in the autumn of their second year will participate in a poster session presentation attended by faculty and students. Posters are intended to summarize students’ first-year research projects. Ideally, the student poster will summarize empirical findings from a study conducted by the student but may also include original data obtained from the advisor or another source. The poster will be prepared in consultation with the student’s advisor and similar to a poster presentation at a professional conference. Students will make a five to seven-minute oral presentation of the research summarized on the poster. This will be followed by individual discussions of their work with faculty and others attending the DAPS/LSTD poster session.

The final part of the research requirement is writing a First Year research report that should be done in consultation with your advisor. The First Year research report becomes a part of the Specialty Review – Part I.

DAPS faculty and students have also collaborated to create this preliminary (first-year) review FAQ document, which further explains the preliminary (first-year) review and answers commonly held questions. 

The 6th quarter Specialty Review aims to enable the faculty to determine whether students are prepared to move on to dissertation research. The review includes an assessment of all coursework, grades, research activities, and research documents, especially the final write-up of the student’s First-Year Project and the Qualifying Paper. The successful completion of the sixth quarter Specialty Review is intended to reflect a judgment that the student can do dissertation-level work, not only in their area of specialization but also in DAPS more generally. Upon completing the Specialty Review, students must apply for Advancement to Candidacy. See the Second-Year Review section for general requirements that apply to Second-Year Reviews for all Areas.

The standard DAPS specialty review lasts 90 minutes. Toward the end of the evaluation, students will be asked to step out while faculty discuss their progress and then invited to rejoin the meeting for further discussion and final takeaways. The Specialty Review is made up of two parts: I and II. 

Part I of the Specialty Review is an update of the Preliminary Review Portfolio, with particular emphasis on the report of the First-Year Research Project. The primary and secondary advisor and one additional faculty member are chosen by the primary advisor in collaboration with the student to determine that their research competence is at a level sufficient to begin a dissertation study and evaluate each student’s progress. Specific committee composition requirements are outlined in the Dissertation Reading Committee section. The particular competencies expected might depend upon the modes of inquiry that a student anticipates using in their dissertation research. Also considered is the student’s ability to integrate, evaluate, and communicate the research literature on a substantive topic. Occasionally, recent research reports done for other classes or an integrative literature review within the student’s area of concentration may also be included to document developing competencies.

To prepare for the first part of the Specialty Review, the student will update the Preliminary Review Portfolio to include the following:

• A one-page cover letter, addressed to the preliminary review committee, that articulates the three to five most pressing questions that the student would like to discuss during their review. Compared to the questions students prepared for their first-year review, questions for the second-year review tend to be more explicitly research-focused. It is typical for some questions to be specific to the student’s Qualifying Paper –– for example, where and when to submit it for publication –– and others to pertain to the student’s broader future research directions. 

• A schedule for completing remaining degree work (e.g., remaining coursework, other research, dissertation, oral examination).

• Suggestions of possible faculty for a dissertation reading committee.

• An update of the Preliminary Review statement of previous and current research activities, providing specific information about the experiences that have prepared the student to undertake the research tasks involved in a dissertation study.

• Updated Curriculum Vitae.

• A copy of the proposed final Graduate Study Program (GSP).

• An unofficial Stanford transcript from AXESS.

• A copy of the first-year project research report.

• A copy of the DAPS Specialty Review Summary Sheet available online from the GSE Doctoral Forms page.

Part II. The primary goals of Part II of the Specialty Review are threefold: (1) provide the student with an opportunity to develop early expertise about a domain of research and carefully organize their expertise into an informative Qualifying Paper; (2) facilitate the student’s exploration of possible dissertation trajectories; and, (3) generate a document that reflects a sustained effort and provides an evaluation point for advancement to candidacy. The Specialty Review meeting allows the student to gain feedback and guidance from the faculty readers regarding their research direction and plans for the future.

Students will write a Qualifying Paper that builds on the past and present empirical and theoretical literature. In developing the Qualifying Paper, the student will present a thesis and an argument rather than a general overview. The specific content and the format of the paper will be determined by each student in collaboration with their primary advisor. There is some margin of flexibility in how a student prepares the Qualifying Paper. Some possible alternatives include: A significant literature review around an unresolved debate; a largely empirical paper describing the students’ own research and findings; a single-authored manuscript that has been prepared for journal submission; or a focused paper that presents a potential research direction and methodology for study. The Specialty Review Qualifying Paper will be approximately 6,000 words in length (excluding references) and, if appropriate, contain figures and tables.

All students should prepare a brief (roughly 20-minute) PowerPoint presentation of their Qualifying Paper and be ready to present these slides at the start of the discussion during their second-year review. 

Timeline

The Specialty Review should be completed in the spring quarter of the second year. Please refer to the Second Year Review section for more information on this requirement.

Specialty Review Meeting- Procedures for the Student

• Schedule a joint appointment with the primary and second advisors and one additional faculty member chosen by the primary advisor. Provide the date and committee composition to the Doctoral Programs Officer. See the Committee Composition section on p. 18 for more information.

• Portfolio materials should be distributed to Review Committee members at least two to four weeks before the Review date. The appropriate form for Specialty Review evaluation from the Specialty Review meeting, the student and committee will evaluate the Specialty Review materials, discuss any necessary revisions to the final Graduate Study Program (GSP), and consider recommendations for future work.

• The committee will conduct an oral assessment based on the Specialty Review Qualifying Paper. Students can expect to be asked to step out for 10-15 minutes while faculty discuss their progress and then invited to rejoin the meeting for further discussion and final takeaways.

• If the committee is satisfied with the student’s progress toward degree completion and preparation to begin dissertation-level work, the committee will indicate this on the Specialty Review Summary form. If the committee determines that the student’s progress does not meet all of the requirements for the Specialty Review, the advisor will describe what actions must be taken before the student can fully pass the Specialty Review and advance to doctoral candidacy. In either case, all committee members sign the Specialty Review Summary form that the student submits to the Doctoral Programs Officer along with a signed final GSP.

• The results of the Specialty Review will be posted on the students’ AXESS records. When appropriate, the advisor will further discuss the final review results with the student.

Satisfactory completion of the Specialty Review is required before a dissertation proposal may be submitted for oral review or a student advances to candidacy. The Specialty Review and Proposal Hearing may NOT happen at the same time. If students pass the Specialty Review subject to requirements (e.g., subject to the removal of incompletes or satisfactory completion of work required), they may submit a dissertation proposal for oral review as soon as these requirements have been met.

DAPS faculty and students have also collaborated to create this specialty (second-year) review FAQ document, which further explains the preliminary (first-year) review and answers commonly held questions. 

Planning the Dissertation Research

The Dissertation Proposal may be developed and submitted at any time after successful completion of the Specialty Review. The proposal should be conceptually concise, methodologically detailed, and clearly written. It may include the results of pilot work and prior data on measuring instruments where appropriate. The proposal should demonstrate its theoretical grounding and relation to educational practice.

There should be a review of the relevant literature (although this does not need to be an exhaustive review), and the review may be presented as an appendix. It may also be that the student has prepared a previous paper that consists of an exhaustive review of literature, in which case the student may cite this paper as an indication of knowledge of the research area. There should also be a discussion of probable uses of the expected results and potential pitfalls in the approach. The main body of the proposal (excluding references and appendices) should not exceed 25 double-spaced typewritten pages. Liberal use of appendices (e.g., for pilot studies or literature reviews) is encouraged.

The dissertation proposal should conclude with an estimated budget the student might prepare with their advisor’s consultation. The budget should offer a realistic estimate of the costs (e.g., travel, copying, transcription of interviews, etc.) associated with completing the study. Funding sources to assist the student with the dissertation should be provided if possible.

Beyond these guidelines, a formula for good proposals cannot be given. Form follows function, and the variety of investigative approaches and styles in psychological research is substantial. For ideas, students should look to discussions with advisors and examples from relevant literature (e.g., Psychological Bulletin). Examples of previously approved Dissertation Proposals may be available from your advisor, the Area Chair, or Cubberley Library.

Not all courses will necessarily be offered during a given year; refer to ExploreCourses for course schedules. The core courses provide students with the necessary foundational (theoretical and methodological) skills to understand the significant psychological, social, and developmental issues in educational research and practice. To support the development of methodological skills, these courses include assignments in the form of reasonably constrained, small-scale research projects or shorter exercises. It is expected that some projects may be of a quality that is reportable at a scientific or professional meeting. A research project conducted in a core course will not be expected to lead into the dissertation research, though that possibility is not precluded.

To count an approved course towards the DAPS Core Course requirement, a Ph.D. student must complete a written assignment that that shows theoretical understanding of major psychological, social, and developmental issue(s) in education research or practice, as well as knowledge of methodological skills needed to address or critique the relevant research question(s). Acceptable formats include an empirical paper, a grant proposal, a research review, or a series of reports. The course instructor will decide the format and focus of the assignment, which could be identified in the syllabus as an extra requirement for DAPS Ph.D. students who want the class to count as a core course.

Students should include these written products in their first and second year review portfolios. Note: Students do not need to complete all four core courses by the end of their second year. 

To help you select classes, we have grouped the DAPS Core Courses into four content clusters. You can read course summaries and see a detailed overview of course components. You can select your core courses from any cluster. (You do NOT need to take all courses within a cluster, or take one from each cluster.)

Students will keep track of the DAPS Core Courses they have completed using the DAPS Core Courses Student Form and include it in their portfolios. After a student completes four DAPS Core Courses, they are expected to print this form, ask their primary advisor to review and sign it, and turn in the signed form to the Doctoral Programs Officer. This form does NOT replace the GSP form, which is still a required component of students’ first and second review portfolios.

This policy replaces the prior practice of petitioning for a non-approved course to count toward core requirements. All previously approved petitions stand, and for those successful petitions you do not need to complete an additional written assignment. However, no new petitions will be accepted.

If you took a class from the expanded list of 24 DAPS Core Courses before it was approved as such, you may speak with your advisor to see whether it should be counted toward your foundational training. If the course has a new written assignment to align with the vision for DAPS Core Courses, you must also have approval from the instructor to complete that assignment after the class. With those two faculty approvals, please email the DAPS Area Chair to finalize this exception.

Students must take LSTD Proseminar EDUC 291 (autumn, winter, and spring quarters of the first year, and then again for an overall total of nine quarters).

Students must take LSTD Proseminar EDUC 291 (autumn, winter, and spring quarters of the first year, and then again for an overall total of nine quarters).

As a condition for receiving the PhD with the LSTD cross-area specialization, students must attend the colloquium for at least nine quarters and attend at least five quarters in the first and second years. This colloquium provides a forum for students and faculty to present and critique research relevant to the LSTD doctoral program. The goal is to develop a community of scholars who become familiar with one another’s work and can inform each other in the diverse areas relevant to LSTD. The colloquium also intends to give students practice and feedback about the arts of presentation and scholarly dialog while introducing seminal issues and fundamental works in the field.

LSTD students will complete and write up a first-year project that constitutes a significant component of their first-year review to be conducted in the Autumn of their second year. LSTD students will also need to demonstrate proficiency through coursework or prior achievements (such as course equivalencies), determined in consultation with their faculty advisor, in the following domains:

• Two courses in research methodology

• Two courses in design skills (e.g., user experience design, programming, graphic design, robotics, video/film, simulation modeling, animation, industrial design, game development)

• Two courses on learning (e.g., Introduction to the Learning Sciences, Introduction to Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning)

• One course on technology from a critical/social scientific/historical/philosophical perspective

• One course focused on learning in a disciplinary content area (e.g., mathematics, science, literacy, computer science, engineering, history)

See the “General Education Courses” Section for additional requirements.

Prospective students will also benefit from studying the learning resources provided by the Network of Academic Programs in the Learning Sciences (NAPLeS) — a network of PhD and Master’s programs in the Learning Sciences. NAPLeS is part of the educational mission of the International Society of the Learning Sciences. The overall mission of NAPLeS is to foster high-quality Learning Sciences programs internationally through several mechanisms that support teaching and learning. As one of its founding members, we are glad to report that as of December 2020, 39 universities offering over 60 different programs have joined NAPLeS.

RILE students should take the Colloquium (EDUC 489) during the first year’s autumn, winter, and spring quarters and then again for an overall total of at least six quarters. This colloquium provides a vibrant forum for students and faculty to present and critique new and original research relevant to the RILE doctoral program, to help develop a community of scholars who become familiar with one another’s work, and to introduce seminal issues and fundamental works in the field.  

Select 5 courses that fit RILE's distribution requirements, with at least 1 course from each of the following 3 areas:

1. Issues of Race in Education

2. Studies of Inequality and Schooling

3. Linguistic Diversity and Identity

This course distribution will remain under the purview of the academic advisor. The courses are designed to help students gain an interdisciplinary understanding of the confluence of a broad range of economic, historical, political, social, and cultural factors that sustain and shape relationships among race, ethnicity, language, and inequality in education within and across societies.

The RILE courses may double count with courses that satisfy other area and school requirements and come from outside the school (e.g., CCSRE) to keep the overall course burden on students and faculty manageable.

• Usually, a student will complete the equivalent of a master’s program in an appropriate department (e.g., sociology, philosophy, economics, etc.).

• In addition, in consultation with the advisor and program committee, the student will construct a significant course of studies in education appropriate to their disciplinary specialty from courses and individual studies offered within SHIPS, the GSE, and elsewhere on campus as needed.

• Students must pursue studies beyond the introductory level in one other field of HSS offered within the program.

• Students must meet GSE requirements.

• Beyond coursework, a research apprenticeship is required from each student to obtain intensive training on an ongoing project or undertake supervised fieldwork. If a student plans a career in college teaching, they are also encouraged to do some supervised teaching during their graduate career.

• Students completing one of the disciplinary concentrations in HSS will graduate with a degree in Anthropology and Education, Economics and Education, Educational Linguistics, History of Education, Philosophy and Education, or Sociology of Education.

For students enrolling in one of the disciplinary programs within HSS.

The program in Education Data Science serves students looking to employ modern data science analyses and computational methods to solve the world’s most significant educational challenges. It offers training in data science skills anchored in educational data, applications, and concerns. Analytically, students are expected to become familiar with statistics, programming languages, computational methods (machine learning, data mining), data visualization, and specialized analytic concerns, such as relational and textual data (network science and text analysis). These skill sets enable students to perform state-of-the-art analyses salient to digital data found in most educational, organizational, and web-based companies.

Students will take coursework focused on critical data science principles, topics, and applications common to data science in education contexts to ensure they attain a common cohesive base of knowledge and skills to pursue academic areas of interest and specialization tracks later in their course plan. Students will also complete data science specializations in their course of study. The areas of specialization are Natural Language Processing, Network Science, Experiments & Causal Methods, Measurement, and Learning Analytics.

Students are required to complete a minimum of 5 courses:

• 2 Education Data Science Core Courses, and

• A minimum of 3 Data Science Specialization Courses (1 course each in 3 specializations).

For students enrolling in the program in Education Policy:

In consultation with the advisor and program committee, the student will construct a significant course of studies in education appropriate to their program interests in Educational Policy from courses and individual studies offered within SHIPS, the GSE, and elsewhere on campus as needed.

This program should include at least one course in each of the four main areas within the program: economics, sociology/organization studies, policy, and history.

Students must pursue a minor or master’s outside the GSE. This can either be a departmental minor, under the terms defined by the appropriate department, or an Individually Designed Distributed Minor. Both require substantial coursework from a department or school within Stanford but outside of the GSE.

Students must meet GSE requirements.

Beyond coursework, a research apprenticeship is required from each student to obtain intensive training on an ongoing project or undertake supervised fieldwork. If a student plans a career in college teaching, they are encouraged to do some supervised teaching during their graduate career.

Students completing this program will graduate with a degree in Educational Policy.

For students enrolling in the program in Higher Education:

In consultation with the advisor and program committee, the student will construct a significant course of studies in education appropriate to their program interests in Higher Education Policy from courses and individual studies offered within SHIPS, the GSE, and elsewhere on campus as needed.

This program should include the following three courses:

• EDUC 265/165 - History of Higher Education

• EDUC 347 - Economics of Higher Education

• EDUC 355 - Higher Education and Society

In addition, students must take two electives in higher education.

ED 346 – Research Seminar in Higher Education – is not required but is strongly recommended for students without previous training in higher education.

Students must pursue a minor or master’s outside the GSE. This can either be a departmental minor, under the terms defined by the appropriate department, or an Individually Designed Distributed Minor. Both require substantial coursework from a department or school within Stanford but outside of the GSE.

Students must meet GSE requirements.

Beyond coursework, a research apprenticeship is required from each student to obtain intensive training on an ongoing project or undertake supervised fieldwork. If students plan a career in college teaching, they are encouraged to do some supervised teaching during their graduate career.

Students completing this program will graduate with a degree in Higher Education.

For students enrolling in the program in Global and Comparative Education (GCE):

In consultation with the advisor and program committee, the student will construct a significant course of studies in education appropriate to their program interests in Global and Comparative Education from courses and individual studies offered within SHIPS, the GSE, and elsewhere on campus as needed.

This program should include the following courses:

• EDUC 202 - Introduction to Global and Comparative Education

• EDUC 306A and 306D - GCE core sequence on education and development (EDUC 306B is recommended but not required)

Students must pursue a minor or master’s outside the GSE. This can either be a departmental minor, under the terms defined by the appropriate department, or an Individually Designed Distributed Minor. Both require substantial coursework from a department or school within Stanford but outside of the GSE.

Students must meet GSE requirements.

Beyond coursework, a research apprenticeship is required from each student to obtain intensive training on an ongoing project or undertake supervised fieldwork. If students plan a career in college teaching, they are encouraged to do some supervised teaching during their graduate career.

Students completing this program will graduate with a degree in Global and Comparative Education.

For students enrolling in a joint degree program, including one program in HSS and one in IDE:

In consultation with the advisor and program committee, the student will construct a program that meets the requirements of their HSS and IDE programs.

Students must meet School of Education distribution requirements.

Beyond coursework, a research apprenticeship is required from each student to obtain intensive training on an ongoing project or undertake supervised fieldwork. If students plan a career in college teaching, they are encouraged to do some supervised teaching during their graduate career.

The dual degree program will require no more units than a program in HSS or IDE.

Students completing this program will graduate with a degree listing both areas of specialization, one in HSS and the other in IDE.

During the third quarter of enrollment, usually the spring quarter of the first year in the program, each student shall submit a portfolio containing:

• A preliminary Graduate Study Program (GSP) signed by the advisor.

• An unofficial transcript from AXESS.

• An explanation of any “incompletes” and when the incompletes will be removed.

• A finalized plan for a doctoral minor or a disciplinary master’s (as appropriate).

• Copies of two class papers to illustrate writing and analytic abilities.

• Three copies of a short (two to three pages) statement of purpose describing the rationale for the proposed GSP, including future research interests and plans.

• A portfolio copy should be submitted to each Review Committee member individually at least two weeks before the Review date.

There should be a face-to-face meeting between the student and a committee of two or three faculty members. The number of committee members is up to the discretion of the advisor. One member should generally be the program advisor; the other one or two members should, if possible, be acquainted with the student’s class work or work as an RA). At least two members of the committee must be GSE academic council faculty. See the Committee Composition requirements. The SHIPS First-Year Review committee is a special case that permits two faculty members instead of the usual three. After the review meeting, the student will submit the signed SHIPS first-year review form and preliminary GSP to the Doctoral Programs Officer. After these documents are submitted, the results of the first-year review will be posted on the student’s record on Axess.

Only in extreme cases, a student can petition for an extension of the deadline for the First-Year Review (see the First-Year Review section). The faculty advisor should endorse the petition, and the SHIPS Area Committee in Executive Session will consider it.

During the sixth quarter of enrollment, usually the spring quarter of the second year in the doctoral program, students shall submit a portfolio containing:

• An unofficial transcript from AXESS.

• A final Graduate Study Program (GSP) ready for approval by the advisor and Area Committee.

• A copy of the Qualifying Paper (QP).

• A portfolio copy should be submitted to each Review Committee member individually at least two weeks before the Review date.

The QP shall be read by three faculty members (one being the advisor and the other two either assigned by the advisor or by the Area Chair). The Second-Year Review committee must have at least three faculty members (see the Committee Composition section).

The QP and the rest of the portfolio will be discussed with the student in a review meeting no later than a few days before spring quarter’s final SHIPS Area Committee meeting with the three faculty readers who comprise the Review Committee. The faculty will have reviewed in advance the qualifying paper and the portfolio. The QP will be deemed one of the following: acceptable as is, acceptable with minor revisions or addendum, acceptable if the committee approves a revised and resubmitted paper, or unacceptable. After the review meeting, the student will submit the signed SHIPS second-year review form and final GSP to the Doctoral Programs Officer. After these documents are submitted, the results of the second-year review will be posted on the student’s record in Axess. If the results are favorable, the student will be eligible for advancement to candidacy as soon as they submit a signed and completed Application for Doctoral Candidacy (all forms available on the GSE Website, under current students>forms). If the review results are unacceptable, the advisor should confer with the Area Chair and the Associate Dean of Educational Affairs on the appropriate course of action.

See the Second-Year Review section of the handbook for more details on the second-year review, including the expected timeframe and procedure for requesting extensions.

Doctoral students are expected to complete a dissertation proposal during the fourth year. Students who plan to do extensive field research should plan to complete the proposal by the end of the third year.