THREE STAGES OF PROGRAM ASSESSMENT

There are three stages of assessment in the PhD program including the Annual Review following the second ERW, Candidacy following the fourth ERW, and the Dissertation Defense following the sixth ERW.  (See more on the following pages)

 I. Annual Review

The first stage of a major assessment in this program which comes after the second ERW is the Annual Review.  This review will include the Program Director, the colleague’s Mentor and the Colleague meeting together to review all of the material above to determine whether the colleague is progressing academically and scholarly (writing, thinking, openness and conclusions supported by their peers and mentor). While the work is still in the beginning stage, a determination will be made as to whether the project as it appears thus far can be completed by the candidate. Does it rise to the level of a doctoral degree, is it in fact, a ministry that is theologically, biblically and philosophically sound and is it helpful to the participants in the study and possibly the world.  Finally, does the level of scholarship meet the standards of the HAI PhD program?

The colleague will setup an appointment with the Program Director, the mentor and the colleague to meet for the Annual Review.  A form will be used for the mentor to evaluate all the work done thus far and the colleague’s work ethic; the use of the group (positive or negative).  The Program Director will evaluate the most recent work of the colleague. By the end of the meeting of the Annual Review the result will be one of the following decisions: 1) the colleague will continue in the program incorporating the feedback given in the review; 2) the colleague will be put on probation with certain required achievements to be accomplished by a set timeline; or 3) the colleague will be discontinued from the program. 

Faculty Chair

The next important step in the process follows the third ERW.  As soon as the required papers are written by the colleague and accepted by the mentor, a packet will be turned in to the Academic Dean who will assign a Faculty Chair.  The purpose of this assignment at this time is so the Chair and the colleague can get to know either other on paper primarily.  The candidacy review will not take place until after the fourth ERW.

II. Candidacy

 The second stage of major assessment in the program will be the Candidacy Review.  It is  the first official step in the Dissertation Process. Candidacy is not only a major review, but  perhaps the most critical one of the colleague’s process.  He or she cannot move forward until this review has taken place and Candidacy has been awarded.  The Chair will be assigned before the fourth ERW, but the Candidacy Review will not take place sooner than thirty days after the fourth EW.  All of the candidacy’s process and work including Core Courses, Preparation for Candidacy, Theoretical Foundations and Methodology will be reviewed by the Chair who will help prepare you for the candidacy and determine when you are ready for the review.

  There is an application form in the appendixes of the PhD Manual that must be filled out and signed by you, the chair, your mentor and your peer before you can be scheduled for your candidacy review. 

When the candidates feel they are ready for the Candidacy Review, they must fill out the form and get all the signatures.  The Chair will not sign the form until he or she believes everything is in proper order to conduct a Candidacy Review.  Once all of the signatures are in place, you will call the Academic Assistant to schedule an appointment for  the review The Candidacy Review is the second most vital step in the entire PhD degree process.  It authenticates whether or not you are qualified to continue in PhD process and supports the expectation that you will complete the degree.

Purpose

There are several purposes for the candidacy process:

  • To bring a Faculty Chair on board for each colleague, (after third Emergent Residency Week)
  • To allow colleagues to present all the work completed up to that point and have it examined by an objective member of the faculty to determine whether it is in keeping with the mission statement and the academic standards of Hebrew Academy International,
  • To determine if there are problems with the colleague’s proposal and/or other aspects of the work done so far; the candidacy process helps the colleague get on track before going any further; and whether the practicum event project when completed would rise to the level of warranting a PhD degree;
  • To allow colleagues the opportunity to demonstrate that they are academically strong enough to complete the doctoral degree or not, and finally,
  • If an assessment of colleague’s work demonstrates inadequate academic standing, the colleague may be delayed until further work has been submitted to demonstrate quality work required or if not possible, the colleague may be dismissed from the PhD program.

If you fail for any reason, to present yourself for Candidacy after the fourth Emergent Residency Week, the Dissertation Committee {see -Dissertation Committee}, (Faculty Chair, Mentor, Director of the PhD Program [another PhD faculty person if the Director is the Mentor] and the Dean) will meet and determine if and how you may continue the PhD process or decide to terminate you from the program.  This decision will be made no less than two weeks before the Fifth Emergent Residency Week begins. You will not be allowed to register for that Emergent Residency Week.

Implementation Process

The Candidacy Process requires you to put together a candidacy packet following the third Emergent Residency Week. This packet should include the following items:

  1. Spiritual Awakening Autobiography ,
  2. Context Analysis
  3. Setting praxis
  4. Project Proposal 
  5. Theory (growing out of a review of related literature and resources)
  6. Annotated bibliography (the beginning list of at least 25 entries)

The packet must be approved by the members of the Mishpacha Colleague Group and the Mentor.  Once the packet is approved it is delivered to the Dean who will identify a Faculty Chair for you.    

 The Faculty Chair will review the packet and determine if it is adequate and appropriate for the candidacy committee to meet.  Following the Candidacy Review Meeting the committee will decide whether you may become a candidate and if your practicum event project may be implemented.

III. Defense

A project defense is required for the PhD. To graduate you must submit your project you must schedule a defense and Appendix F form is returned to  colleague, the colleague must submit a copy of the form to: Director of PhD, 2) Registrar Office. You may schedule your defense before this date or shortly thereafter. In either case, your committee must receive your thesis/dissertation at least two weeks before the scheduled defense. It is important to schedule your defense so that you allow enough time afterwards to make final revisions before the final submission. HAI defenses are open sessions.

In all cases, the student must submit copies of the project to the members of their committee at least two weeks prior to the defense. The project defense must be held within one month after it is submitted. Final approval by the student’s committee needs to be made by May 30th. This approval should be noted on the PhD Project Defense Appendix G form. If, however, the project is not approved as it stands, you will be required to make revisions or re-write

Final approval by the student’s committee needs to be made by October 15th and/or April 15th. Once a project has been approved, The PhD Oral Defense Presentation Evaluation form (Appendix G), must be given to the PhD. Director and Registrar at the close of the meeting due by November 30th or May 30th to the Assistant Dean for Academic Programs. At this time, if not yet obtained, the student should also obtain original signatures from the committee on each copy of the title page printed on the proper paper with the proper formatting that follows Doctoral Dissertation

Guidelines.

After a successful defense and final revisions are made and approved, you must send two complete sets of your project to the Dean’s office along with the completed PhD Publishing and Binding form.

 

Main Menu