Product Information

Rationale: Critically reviewing literature is essential for drawing practical conclusions from research and generating new knowledge.

Aims

The Literature Review requirement intends to provide students with:

1. Rich experience in reviewing literature before their dissertation
2. a product with the potential for publication
3. broader scholarly expertise within their area of study

 General Criteria*

Multiple types of literature reviews are acceptable, including meta-analyses, evidence-based practice reviews, and narrative reviews. The style of review should match the nature of the literature and the purposes of the review.

Students may complete the literature review individually or collaboratively. Collaborative projects are limited to a maximum of three students, with an expectation that student contributions are roughly comparable.

The Literature Review must be substantively different from other projects completed as part of the comprehensive exam (e.g., the Writing for Publication Product and the Research Internship).

*Differences between and within specializations may necessitate adaptation to meet the primary aims of this product for each student. Students must get prior approval from their advisors for any substantive deviations from the listed criteria.

Evaluation

The Literature Review is expected to have a publishable scope and quality, as determined by the student's advisory committee. The process for evaluation and approval of the product is as follows:

1. The student sends their literature review to all members of their advisory committee, explicitly stating the intent that it meets the comprehensive exam requirement to complete a literature review.
2. The student's advisor and at least one other committee member (appointed by the student's advisor) read and evaluate the literature review. Any additional committee member who wishes to assess the literature review may do so.
3. All reviewers send their decisions and comments to the advisor within two weeks of receiving the literature review. The advisor compiles these reviews and sends them to all committee members.

Possible outcomes of the evaluation process:

1. Unanimous approval: A unanimous advisory committee decision that the literature review meets all criteria will result in a passing grade.
2. Unanimous disapproval: A unanimous advisory committee decision that the literature review does not meet all criteria will result in revisions, as the committee dictates. The student's advisor oversees the revision process and then sends it out for review following the previously listed steps.
3. Split decision: Ideally, disagreement between committee members can be resolved through a process of consensus-seeking. When consensus is not possible, the advisor will request a third review to create a majority decision.

Students can appeal a decision to the Disability Disciplines Doctoral Committee.

Timing and submission

Students typically complete the literature review during their third year of full-time study. Upon completion, students will log in and submit a ServiceNow request for the Literature Review, which must be approved by their major professor and/or other committee members.

Rationale: Presenting theoretically and empirically supported questions, ideas, and findings is essential to improving our disciplines with new knowledge. 

Aims

The Conference Presentation requirement intends to provide students with:

1. experience presenting within their field of study before their dissertation
2. broader scholarly expertise within their area of study

 General Criteria*

Student presentations occur in a setting that is meaningful and of considerable impact. Although this favors national conferences, a state or regional conference may also meet this criterion.

Specializations within the Disability Disciplines Program differ significantly in opportunities for presenting nationally. A poster may meet the requirements of this product for some specializations or disciplines and not for others.

The presentation need not incorporate student-generated data; however, it must be a scholarly/academic presentation rather than a workshop or presentation for a non-academic audience.

*Differences between and within specializations may necessitate adaptation to meet the primary aims of this product for each student. Students must get prior approval from their advisors for any substantive deviations from the listed criteria.

Evaluation

The Conference Presentation is evaluated by the student's advisory committee. The process for evaluation and approval of the product is as follows:

1. The student communicates to their advisor that they are presenting at a conference, explicitly stating the intent that it meets the comprehensive exam requirement to provide a conference presentation. The student also shares any materials and resources used in the presentation with their advisor prior to presenting.
2. The student's advisor or another advisory committee member attends the presentation. When attendance of an advisory committee member is not possible, the student arranges for it to be recorded or observed by someone approved by the advisor.
3. The observer (typically the advisor) writes a brief evaluative statement and reviews it with the student.

Possible outcomes of the evaluation process:

All conference presentations that are successfully completed and meet the criteria above will be approved.

Timing and submission

Students typically complete the conference presentation during their second or third year of full-time study. Upon completion, students will log in and submit a ServiceNow request for the Conference Presentation, which must be approved by their major professor and/or the faculty member who attended the presentation.

Rationale: Procuring financial resources is useful in supporting the generation of new ideas and sustaining programs and research activities.

Aims

The Grant Writing requirement intends to provide students with:

1. an overview of the grant writing process
2. an initial experience in grant writing

General Criteria*

Grant writing can differ in scale and scope, and multiple grant writing experiences are acceptable. Students will typically complete this product in collaboration with a faculty member who serves as the grant writing lead. When the student's advisor is not engaged in grant writing, that advisor will support students in identifying an opportunity to work with another faculty member. Although it is ideal to engage in grant writing activities that align with student interests, the broader aims of this product can be met through an experience that does not.

Specializations within the Disability Disciplines Program differ significantly in the scope and scale of their grant-writing activities. That said, the grant must be competitive in nature, adequate in scope, and offer meaningful insights into the planning, preparation, and submission of a grant application.   

*Differences between and within specializations may necessitate adaptation to meet the primary aims of this product for each student. Students must get prior approval from their advisors for any substantive deviations from the listed criteria.

Evaluation

The Grant Writing product is evaluated by the project director or primary investigator overseeing application submission (the advisor for a student-led initiative). The process for initiating and evaluating the product is as follows:

1. The student communicates to their advisor an interest in grant writing activities, explicitly stating the intent that it meets the comprehensive exam requirement to engage in grant writing.
2. The advisor and student work together to identify a grant writing experience that meets all general criteria. For grant activities with someone other than the advisor, the advisor will initially check with other faculty to determine their willingness to supervise the student in the grant writing experience. 
3. Once matched, the student and direct grant supervisor will form a plan for how the student will engage in the grant writing experience. The grant supervisor or advisor (when different) will provide the student with a basic overview of the grant writing process and related decision-making.
4. Upon completion of student grant writing activities, the grant supervisor writes a brief evaluative statement about the quality and content of the student's contribution to the application. The student sends the written evaluation to each advisory committee member for approval.

Possible outcomes of the evaluation process:

All grant writing products that receive an adequate evaluation from the grant supervisor and meet the criteria above will be approved.

Timing and submission

Students typically complete the grant writing product during their second or third year of full-time study. Upon completion, students will log in and submit a ServiceNow request for Grant Writing, which must be approved by their major professor and/or grant supervisor.

Examples of Meaningful Grant Writing Activities

1. Review the grant Request for Proposals (RFP) or Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) and summarize key requirements
2. Research background statistics or supporting data (e.g., prevalence of the issue, need for services)
3. Identify and summarize similar funded projects for comparison or inspiration.
4. Help compile literature to support the need for the project
5. Draft initial text for specific sections (e.g., project need, goals, objectives, target population)
6. Creation of tables/figures
7. Assist with editing and proofreading drafts for clarity and grammar
8. Write short descriptions of your organization, team, or history of similar work
9. Draft bios or CV summaries for key personnel
10. Create a draft budget based on sample templates
11. Research realistic cost estimates for equipment, personnel, or travel
12. Help prepare budget justifications for line items
13. Draft a timeline or Gantt chart for major activities
14. Help define roles and responsibilities for project staff
15. Draft logic models under guidance
16. Draft outreach emails to partners requesting letters of support
17. Organize and format required attachments (e.g., letters of support, resumes, MOUs)
18. Help with document formatting, citations, and style consistency
19. Assist in reviewing the full application checklist
20. Help assemble and label final application components
21. Practice explaining the project in a mock panel review setting
22. Create a tip sheet or checklist for future student assistants

Rationale: Most graduates will engage in teaching or training roles in higher education or professional settings. This requirement ensures they develop proficiency in college teaching and strengthens their competitiveness for academic positions. 

Aims

The Teaching Internship requirement intends to provide students with:

1. experience teaching as the primary instructor prior to graduation
2. broader scholarly expertise within their area of study

General Criteria*

Students must have the primary instructor role for an entire course. This should include responsibility for planning and managing the course (e.g. syllabus, presentation of most materials, assignments, student feedback, grading, and other miscellaneous activities related to college teaching). Students enrolled in the course should view the doctoral student as the primary course instructor. In meeting this requirement, students will be required to engage in some web-based learning management system (e.g., Canvas).

Students will typically be asked to teach a previously developed course rather than to create an entirely new course. Students may still demonstrate course development skills in a variety of ways such as developing new course content, course units/modules, assessment tools, interactive activities, and hybrid courses.

Students can expect faculty support in completing this product, with faculty members typically attending a significant portion of class sessions. Faculty presence in the classroom can be shaped by the student’s level of experience, comfort, and competence. The student’s advisor must seek approval from the relevant Department Head for permission to attend anything less than 75% of class sessions. 

*Differences between and within specializations may necessitate adaptation to meet the primary aims of this product for each student. Students must get prior approval from their advisors for any substantive deviations from the listed criteria.

Evaluation

The Teaching Internship is evaluated by the faculty member who is directly responsible for the course. The process for evaluation and approval of the product is as follows:

1. The faculty member responsible for the course will evaluate the student’s teaching skills at a minimum of two times during the course.
2. At the end of the course, students will create a 1 to 3 page reflection paper about their teaching experience and proficiencies demonstrated. Students must incorporate data from course evaluations, their thoughts about the course and their teaching performance, and an explanation of how they would alter the course or the course delivery based on formal and informal feedback received. The responsible faculty member (typically the advisor) writes a brief evaluative statement and reviews it with the student.
1. Regarding formal feedback, the faculty member responsible for the course and the student should work with Department staff early in the course to ensure that students completing the product receive their own IDEA evaluation that is separate from the faculty member.

Possible outcomes of the evaluation process:

All teaching internships that are successfully completed and meet the criteria above will be approved.

Timing and submission

Students typically complete the teaching internship during their second or third year of full-time study. Upon completion, students will log in and submit a ServiceNow request for the Teaching Internship, which must be approved by their major professor and/or the faculty member directly responsible for the course.

Rationale: Most graduates will engage in research post-graduation. This requirement ensures they gain experience in research activities and strengthens their competitiveness for academic positions. 

Aims

The Research Internship requirement intends to provide students with:

1. research experience prior to initiating the dissertation
2. broader scholarly expertise within their area of study 

General Criteria*

A primary focus of this requirement is for students in gain experience in the mechanics of data collection, recording, and analysis. Advisors must approve research internship activities, which will be specified in writing at the beginning of the semester it is being completed.

*Differences between and within specializations may necessitate adaptation to meet the primary aims of this product for each student. Students must get prior approval from their advisors for any substantive deviations from the listed criteria.

Evaluation

The Research Internship is evaluated by the faculty member who is directly responsible for supervising the research internship. The process for evaluation and approval of the product is as follows:

1. At the end of the internship, students will write a brief paper that describes their activities, presents their data, and provides a brief synopsis of what they learned.
2. The faculty member responsible for the research project will evaluate the student’s research skills based on the combination of the student reflection and observed research activities. The faculty director of the research project will evaluate the student's participation and proficiency in the agreed upon activities.

Possible outcomes of the evaluation process:

All research internships that are successfully completed and meet the criteria above will be approved.

Timing and submission

Students typically complete the research internship during their second or third year of full-time study. Upon completion, students will log in and submit a ServiceNow request for the Research Internship, which must be approved by their major professor and/or the faculty member directly responsible for overseeing the research.

Rationale: Most graduates will be expected to serve as mentors or gatekeepers in their profession. This requirement ensures they gain experience in mentoring and supervision activities and strengthens their competitiveness for academic positions. 

Aims

The Supervision Internship requirement intends to provide students with:

1. supervision experience prior to graduation
2. greater understanding of their role and identity as a supervisor

General Criteria*

Since the way supervision and mentoring are carried out varies among specializations in the Disability Disciplines Doctoral Program, the specific supervision internship requirements, procedures, and evaluative criteria will be designed by the faculty in each specialization area.

Generally, the requirements in each specialization will address: (a) collecting and interpreting observations on professionals and/or pre-professionals; (b) identifying strengths and weaknesses in the performance of the supervisee; (c) giving feedback to supervisees and, as necessary, providing corrective training to supervisees to remediate deficit performance areas; and (d) evaluating the impact of the feedback and/or training.

The supervising faculty or staff member will co-observe with the doctoral student and check their supervision performance in each of the areas above.

*Differences between and within specializations may necessitate adaptation to meet the primary aims of this product for each student. Students must get prior approval from their advisors for any substantive deviations from the listed criteria.

Evaluation

The Supervision Internship is evaluated by the faculty member who is directly responsible for overseeing that supervision. The process for evaluation and approval of the product is as follows:

1. At the end of the internship, students will write a brief paper that describes their activities and provide a brief synopsis of what they learned.
2. The faculty member responsible for providing supervision will evaluate the student’s supervision skills based on the combination of the student reflection and observed activities.

Possible outcomes of the evaluation process:

All supervision internships that are successfully completed and meet the criteria above will be approved.

Timing and submission

Students typically complete the supervision internship during their second or third year of full-time study. Upon completion, students will log in and submit a ServiceNow request for the Supervision Internship, which must be approved by their major professor and/or the faculty member directly responsible for overseeing the internship.