Doctor of Philosophy

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.

At the end of the first year (typically Spring Quarter of the first year), students complete a review of their first year’s work in order to assess their progress in conducting research, ensure that their Graduate Study Program (GSP) reflects adequate breadth and depth of knowledge in their field, and identify any additional training needs of the student.

A committee, comprised of the program advisor(s) and other faculty, evaluates the student’s portfolio and overall academic progress to date in a review hearing. The portfolio normally contains the preliminary GSP, transcripts, and Area-specific materials, and it is submitted at least two to four weeks prior to the review hearing date.

Each Area’s section of this Handbook details the Area-specific requirements for the review (including CTE opens in a new tab, DAPS opens in a new tab, and SHIPS opens in a new tab). Students must meet with their advisor several weeks in advance of 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 opens in a new tab.

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 fall of second year of enrollment. The student should discuss this option with their advisor and then email the Doctoral Programs Officer explaining why they will not be able to complete the Review by the published deadline, the length of the requested extension (normally 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 any supporting documentation must be received a few business days prior to 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.

The Doctoral Programs Officer sends out informational emails in the Winter Quarter for Area-Specific requirements and deadlines for the First-Year Reviews to be completed in Spring Quarter. Procedures and deadlines to petition for extensions are included.

The purpose of the second year review is 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 at the end of their second year (typically Spring Quarter of the third year).  The purpose of this policy is to help assure timely progress toward completion of the Ph.D. With permission from the advisor and area chair, students may petition for an extension of the second-year review deadline to the third year of enrollment.  If students require an extension, they must fill out the GSE Second Year Review Extension Form opens in a new tab, 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 third year. Failure to successfully complete the review by the end of the Fall quarter of third year will lead immediately to a review of program status by the Associate Dean of Educational Affairs and may result in suspension of doctoral funding and/or dismissal from the program.

Each Area’s section of this Handbook details the Area-specific requirements for the review (including CTE opens in a new tab, DAPS opens in a new tab, and SHIPS opens in a new tab). Students must meet with their advisor several weeks in advance of 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 opens in a new tab.

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

The advancement to doctoral candidacy is an acknowledgment of a student’s potential to successfully complete the specific degree requirements of the department. Students must advance to candidacy by the end of the second year, as stated in University policy opens in a new tab. 

After passing the Second-Year review, the faculty advisor normally asks the student to apply for and advance to doctoral candidacy. The Application for Candidacy for Doctoral Degree is the University’s version of the final Graduate Study Program; therefore the student’s final GSP, the Application, and Stanford transcript (for courses already completed) should match identically with regard to courses and units listed. The GSP is a GSE form indicating a plan for coursework; the Application is a University contract replacing the GSP. When approved, the Application effectively becomes a binding agreement between the student and University regarding the coursework and requirements for completion of the doctoral degree.

Once granted, candidacy is valid for five calendar years, unless terminated by the department. Generally, leaves of absence do not extend the candidacy period.

Extensions of candidacy are granted only with valid academic reasons that are supported by the dissertation advisor. Therefore, students are encouraged to plan their research agendas such that their degree is completed within the five year candidacy period. To petition for an extension of candidacy, students must submit an Application for Extension of Candidacy, which includes a detailed work plan, and is signed by the student’s advisor, the Area Chair, and the Associate Dean of Educational Affairs. The requests for candidacy extensions are reviewed by the Associate Dean of Educational Affairs.

Students who have advanced to candidacy earn a higher rate of pay for research assistantships in the GSE. Candidacy status does not affect CA, TA, or TF salaries.

University and GSE policies require an oral examination (i.e., a defense of the dissertation) for the PhD, normally in the fifth year when the dissertation is essentially complete. This examination tests the candidate’s command of the field of study and confirms fitness for scholarly pursuits.

A student can schedule the oral exam only after at least three members of the reading committee agree that the dissertation draft is essentially complete and ready for defense. This means that all text sections must be drafted, all planned data analyses must be executed and represented in tables and figures, and all appendices must be in place. The draft need not be final because suggested revisions and final formatting will be completed after the exam. Students should leave adequate time (at least a couple of weeks is recommended) to complete any required revisions before submitting their dissertation. If a student schedules the oral exam too close to the dissertation submission deadline for a given quarter, they may not have time to complete revisions and may not be able to graduate that quarter.

Students should refer to the doctoral forms oral exam section of the GSE website for the necessary forms and detailed procedures opens in a new tab, as well as consult with the Doctoral Programs Officer, before scheduling their oral exam.

A copy of the dissertation must be submitted to each member of the oral exam committee at least four weeks prior to the examination date, at a time convenient for each committee member. The chair of the oral examination committee may want a copy of the dissertation, or only the abstract. At the very least, a copy of the dissertation abstract must be provided to the oral exam committee chair at least two weeks in advance of the exam. The student should communicate with the chair well in advance to determine the chair’s preference

Before the oral exam, the Doctoral Programs Officer will send all necessary oral exam paperwork and instructions via email to the chair -- ballots will be delivered to one of the committee member's department mailboxes (for in-person exams). Students do not need to bring any administrative paperwork to the oral exam, though they may bring to the oral exam their dissertation signature page. Stanford requires that students obtain original ink signatures from all reading committee members on this document. The student’s typed name should be included on the header of the signature page, in the upper right hand corner (right justified). A sample signature page with further instructions can be found in the electronic dissertation submission guidelines. The faculty on the dissertation reading committee may elect to sign the page after the exam has been passed. They may also wish to wait until revisions are completed, in which case an appointment to get the physical signature should be set. The advisor, in addition to signing the page, will also need to approve via Axess when the dissertation has been finalized and approved, so a signature on the physical page is not the only required action before the final version is submitted.

Each requirement and procedure is discussed in further detail in the sections below and on the GSE website.

Scheduling the Oral Exam

The required paperwork and logistics (e.g., room reservation) are normally completed at least four weeks prior to the exam date, including distribution of dissertation copies to each committee member. Faculty and Academic Affairs staff reserves the right to request a postponement of an oral examination if all of the necessary steps are not completed at least two weeks before the exam date.

Because of registration requirements and faculty availability, oral examinations are normally completed in Autumn, Winter, and Spring Quarters only. Scheduling of orals during the Summer Quarter is often impractical because most faculty members are off-duty or absent from campus in the summer, and students are required to register.

The University Oral Examination Schedule form must be completed and submitted to the Doctoral Programs Officer at least two weeks prior to the oral exam. The Doctoral Programs Officer will obtain the signature of the Associate Dean for Student Affairs as the “Department Chair”. Students with departmental PhD minors (e.g., Psychology, Sociology, etc.) must first obtain a signature from that department’s chair or authorized student services administrator before submitting the Schedule form to the GSE. The minor department may require representation on the oral exam committee. Often, this person may be a GSE faculty member who holds a courtesy or joint appointment in the minor department and can already be a member of the student’s reading committee, but not necessarily.

Registration Requirement

Students must be registered and their candidacy must be valid during the quarter in which the oral examination is completed. The period between the last day of final exams of one term and the first day of the following term is considered an extension of the prior term, only if the student was registered for that quarter. For example, a student who was registered in Spring Quarter can complete the oral exam up until the day before Summer Quarter begins without having to register for summer. For oral exams on or after the first day of Summer Quarter, students must register in their regular TGR section – or enroll in at least three units if they have not yet advanced to TGR status.

Room Reservations

Students are responsible for reserving an appropriate room for the date and time of the oral examination. Be sure to reserve the room for your oral exam and indicate this information on this form before submitting it. To reserve rooms in ANKO or Raikes, click here opens in a new tab to reserve a space. Other rooms across campus can be scheduled using the 25Live website opens in a new tab. The Stanford GSE IT group can help with any audio/visual needs.

GSE Facilities/IT requires at least two weeks notice to coordinate any technical support needed. Please submit this form opens in a new tab to coordinate tech/room support. 

The Oral Examining Committee

The oral examining committee is composed of a minimum of five faculty members, four examiners and the University chair selected by the advisor, in consultation with the student. The committee must include the dissertation advisor and at least one other member of the dissertation reading committee. The oral exam and reading committees are separate and distinct bodies; however, the reading committee normally sits on the oral exam committee. In other words, the three readers are normally also examiners for the defense. Students may only have one non-AC member on the orals committee. The only exception to this rule is if a student has more than the required five for an orals committee. A non-AC member must hold a PhD and contributes an area of expertise that is relevant to the orals and that is not readily available from the Stanford faculty. A petition must be submitted and approved well in advance of the oral exam for a non-AC member of the oral exam committee.

University Chair

The University chair of the oral exam committee must be an Academic Council (AC) member and from a department or school outside of the GSE. In some circumstances, the chair may hold a courtesy appointment in the GSE, or be a GSE faculty member from another Area Committee. If the chair is a GSE faculty member, they must be fully outside of the student’s area (i.e. a person with a full or joint appointment in the student’s area cannot serve as University chair of that student’s oral exam committee).  The Stanford Bulletin outlines the specifics regarding the chair. Professors Emeriti from any department outside of the GSE may serve as oral exam chairs. Advisors are responsible for contacting and making arrangements with the chair, in consultation with the student. If locating a chair is problematic, the Area Chair, and/or the Associate Dean of Educational Affairs may be approached for assistance.

The Abstract

No less than two weeks prior to the examination, students must submit one copy of the dissertation abstract to the oral exam chair. The abstract should be 1,000 to 1,500 words, or approximately six pages long, and should include the following:

1. a summary of the problem;

2. the primary research questions or hypotheses;

3. the methods used to conduct the study; and

4. the most important findings and conclusions.

Submitting the Dissertation

After successfully completing the revisions recommended during the oral exam and obtaining the signatures of all reading committee members, which are not necessarily the same people from the oral exam committee, the dissertation is ready for submission to the Office of the University Registrar.

The American Psychological Association (APA) publication guidelines normally apply to GSE doctoral dissertations, but is not required if the advisor and relevant committees determine that an alternative, and academically acceptable, protocol is more appropriate.

General formatting, submission directions and deadlines are published by the Stanford University Registrar. All doctoral students should read these instructions thoroughly and contact the appropriate Registrar’s Office staff or the GSE Doctoral Programs Officer with any questions. Students should read the supplemental materials required for submission closely as it can be confusing. Dissertation submission information is available from the Registrar opens in a new tab. 

The Registrar's Office offers students the option to submit their dissertation/thesis in electronic format. This electronic submission process is free of charge and allows students the ability to log into Axess and check their pre-submission requirements in the eDissertation/eThesis Center under the academics tab. Once these requirements have been met the "Proceed to Dissertation/Thesis Submission page" button will open up in the student eDissertation/eThesis center and this will allow the student to proceed and upload a soft copy of their dissertation/thesis.

Prior to online submission:

• “Application to Graduate” filed online through Axess by the appropriate deadline

• Confirm the names of all reading committee members in Axess, and designate a Final Reader

• Confirm candidacy as valid through your degree conferral date

• Collect email signatures from Reading Committee opens in a new tab

• Review Steps for Submission of the Dissertation opens in a new tab

• Confirm completion of all required University Milestones

All dissertation submissions must be completed in their entirety before 12 noon on the deadline day for the applicable quarter. When a student misses the submission deadline, she or he must register and submit their dissertation the following quarter, or take an approved leave of absence and register upon her or his return. Students must be registered for the quarter in which they submit their dissertation and graduate.

Students in their final quarter who have completed all milestones aside from the oral exam and/or dissertation submission can apply for a one-time, $150, Graduation Quarter. This is a special registration status in the final quarter at Stanford with the same status as TGR but with a tuition charge of $150, instead of the full TGR rate. See the Graduation Quarter section for more details.

In student’s fourth year, they are expected to complete the dissertation proposal, among other milestones. See fourth year expectations here opens in a new tab.

Proposal Overview and Format

Students are urged to begin thinking about a dissertation topic early in their degree program. Concentrated work on a dissertation proposal normally begins after successful completion of the Second-Year Review, which often includes a “mini” proposal, an extended literature review, or a theoretical essay, plus advancement to doctoral candidacy. In defining a dissertation topic, the student collaborates with their faculty advisor or dissertation advisor (if one is selected) in the choice of a topic for the dissertation.

The dissertation proposal is a comprehensive statement on the extent and nature of the student’s dissertation research interests. Students submit a draft of the proposal to their dissertation advisor during the fourth year. The student must provide a written copy of the proposal to the faculty committee no later than two weeks prior to the date of the proposal hearing. Committee members could require an earlier deadline (e.g., four weeks before the hearing).

The major components of the proposal are as follows, with some variations across Areas and disciplines:

1. A detailed statement of the problem that is to be studied and the context within which it is to be seen. This should include a justification of the importance of the problem on both theoretical and educational grounds.

2. A thorough review of the literature pertinent to the research problem. This review should provide proof that the relevant literature in the field has been thoroughly researched. Good research is cumulative; it builds on the thoughts, findings, and mistakes of others.

3. A statement on the overall design of the proposed study, which includes:

   1. its general explanatory interest

   2. the overall theoretical framework within which this interest is to be pursued

   3. the model or hypotheses to be tested or the research questions to be answered

   4. a discussion of the conceptual and operational properties of the variables

   5. an overview of strategies for collecting appropriate evidence (sampling, instrumentation, data collection, data reduction, data analysis)

   6. a discussion of how the evidence is to be interpreted (This aspect of the proposal will be somewhat different in fields such as history and philosophy of education.)

4. If applicable, students should complete a request for approval of research with human subjects, using the Human Subjects Review Form (http://humansubjects.stanford.edu/ opens in a new tab). Except for pilot work, the University requires the approval of the Administrative Panel on Human Subjects in Behavioral Science Research before any data can be collected from human subjects.

Registration (i.e., enrollment) is required for any quarter during which a degree requirement is completed, including the dissertation proposal. Refer to the Registration or Enrollment for Milestone Completion section opens in a new tab for more details.

Proposal Committee

As students progress through the program, their interests may change. There is no commitment on the part of the student’s advisor to automatically serve as the dissertation chair. Based on the student’s interests and the dissertation topic, many students approach other GSE professors to serve as the dissertation advisor, if appropriate.

A dissertation proposal committee is comprised of three academic council faculty members, one of whom will serve as the major dissertation advisor. Whether or not the student’s general program advisor serves on the dissertation proposal committee and later the reading committee will depend on the relevance of that faculty member’s expertise to the topic of the dissertation, and their availability. There is no requirement that a program advisor serve, although very often they do. Members of the dissertation proposal committee may be drawn from other area committees within the GSE, from other departments in the University, or from emeriti faculty. At least one person serving on the proposal committee must be from the student’s area committee (CTE, DAPS, SHIPS). All three members must be on the Academic Council; if the student desires the expertise of a non-Academic Council member, it may be possible to petition. After the hearing, a memorandum listing the changes to be made will be written and submitted with the signed proposal cover sheet and a copy of the proposal itself to the Doctoral Programs Officer.

Dissertation Proposal Hearing or Meeting

Review and approval of the dissertation proposal occurs normally during the fourth year opens in a new tab. The proposal hearing seeks to review the quality and feasibility of the proposal. The student and the dissertation advisor are responsible for scheduling a formal meeting or hearing to review the proposal; the student and proposal committee convene for this evaluative period. Normally, all must be present at the meeting either in person or via conference phone call.

At the end of this meeting, the dissertation proposal committee members should sign the Cover Sheet for Dissertation Proposal opens in a new tab and indicate their approval or rejection of the proposal. This signed form should be submitted to the Doctoral Programs Officer. If the student is required to make revisions, an addendum is required with the written approval of each member of the committee stating that the proposal has been revised to their satisfaction.

After submitting the Proposal Hearing material to the Doctoral Programs Officer, the student should make arrangements with three faculty members to serve on their Dissertation Reading Committee. The Doctoral Dissertation Reading Committee form should be completed and given to the Doctoral Programs Officer to enter in the University student records system. Note: The proposal hearing committee and the reading committee do not have to be the same three faculty members. Normally, the proposal hearing precedes the designation of a Dissertation Reading Committee, and faculty on either committee may differ (except for the primary dissertation advisor). However, some students may advance to Terminal Graduate Registration (TGR) status before completing their dissertation proposal hearing if they have established a dissertation reading committee. In these cases, it is acceptable for the student to form a reading committee prior to the dissertation proposal hearing. The reading committee then serves as the proposal committee.

The proposal and reading committee forms and related instructions are on the GSE doctoral forms opens in a new tab website.

In students’ fifth year, they are expected to complete the dissertation, among other milestones. See fifth year expectations here opens in a new tab.

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 can be solved by a mere descriptive exercise are not appropriate for the PhD dissertation. Acceptable problems are those that:

1. pose a puzzle to the field at a theoretical, methodological, or policy level;

2. make analytical demands for solution, rather than mere cataloging or descriptive demands; and

3. can yield to a reasonable research methodology.

The doctoral dissertation advisor, reading committee, and oral exam committee provide further guidance and details with regard to dissertation content and format. General formatting and submission guidelines are published by the University Registrar opens in a new tab. The American Psychological Association (APA) publication guidelines normally apply to GSE doctoral dissertations, but is not required if the advisor and relevant committees determine that an alternative, and academically acceptable, protocol is more appropriate.

Published Papers and Multiple Authorship

The inclusion of 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 review of the literature 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 role that the dissertation author had in the research and production of the published paper.  The student must have a major contribution to the research and writing of papers included 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.  Please see this website opens in a new tab for more information on the use of copyrighted materials.

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 normal specifications that would 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 with respect to copyright and public release of the material.  Be sure to discuss copyright clearance and embargo options with your co-authors and your advisor well in advance of preparing your thesis for submission.

The doctoral programs in SHIPS combine two kinds of approaches to research in education. One approach is disciplinary, in which we prepare students to study education issues from one of a wide array of disciplinary perspectives. We call this approach Humanities and Social Sciences in Education (HSS). These disciplinary perspectives include:

• Anthropology opens in a new tab

• Economics opens in a new tab

• History opens in a new tab

• Linguistics opens in a new tab

• Philosophy opens in a new tab

• Sociology opens in a new tab

The other approach is issue based, in which we focus on major issue domains in education that are of particular salience to educational policy. We call this approach Issue Domains in Education (IDE). These issue domains include:

• Education data science opens in a new tab

• Educational policy opens in a new tab

• Global and comparative education opens in a new tab

• Higher education opens in a new tab

The power in the SHIPS approach to doctoral study is the way it opens up the possibilities for educational research that comes from combining the two approaches: deep expertise in a disciplinary tradition (HSS) applied to major issue areas in education (IDE).

The result is a SHIPS matrix: https://ed.stanford.edu/academics/doctoral/ships opens in a new tab

All doctoral students in SHIPS may pursue one of three program options:

1. A program in one of the six HSS disciplines

2. A program in one of the four IDE areas

3. A dual specialization in two of the aforementioned programs

The dual-specialization option draws on the particular strengths of the SHIPS area within the GSE– combining disciplinary expertise and policy relevance, which allows students to apply a deep understanding of a single discipline to a major issue in educational policy. It also gives students a credible dual identity as scholars, which can be helpful in the job market. Students with a dual specialization will earn a Ph.D. from the GSE that lists both programs on the diploma. A key point is that pursuing the joint degree option does not entail taking more total units than pursuing either an HSS or IDE degree.

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

• Normally 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, students construct a major 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 on-going project or undertake supervised fieldwork. If a student plans a career in college teaching, he or she is also encouraged to do some supervised teaching during the 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 the program in Education Policy:

• In consultation with the advisor and program committee, students construct a major 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 on-going project or undertake supervised fieldwork. If a student plans a career in college teaching, he or she is encouraged to do some supervised teaching during the graduate career.

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

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, students construct a program that meets the requirements of both their HSS program and their IDE program.

• Students must meet School of Education distribution requirements.

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

• The dual degree program will require no more units in total 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.

Usually during 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 (2-3 pages) statement of purpose describing the rationale for the proposed GSP including future research interests and plans.

A copy of the portfolio 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 made up of two or three faculty members. The number of committee members is up to the discretion of the advisor. One member should normally 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 opens in a new tab for details, as well as general requirements). The petition should be endorsed by the faculty advisor, and it will be considered by the SHIPS Area Committee in Executive Session.

Normally during 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 copy of the portfolio 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 the final SHIPS Area Committee meeting of Spring Quarter 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 a revised and resubmitted paper is approved by the committee; 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 results of the Review 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 opens in a new tab 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.

• View an example of a Dissertation Proposal: Example of a PhD Proposal opens in a new tab

Additional information about the proposal can be found in the general Dissertation Proposal section opens in a new tab.

Spring Quarter of first year

Autumn Quarter of second year

See first year review requirements opens in a new tab 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 area, 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. If the First Year Review is held before the final paper for EDUC 424 is due, students may use the one- or two-page summary described above. 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 year (two or three quarters) of work at Stanford (an unofficial transcript printed from AXESS is fine)

• 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 opens in a new tab

Students are responsible for assembling copies of this portfolio and delivering them, two to three weeks in advance of the review, to the faculty members participating in the review. Students should check with faculty to determine how far in advance of the review meeting the portfolio should be delivered and whether faculty request a hard copy or 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 an assessment of 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 evaluations of the First Year Review committee, the results will appear on the students’ 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 that apply to all Areas.)  A committee of three faculty members appraise the student’s research skills and preparation for work on the doctoral dissertation. The Second-Year Review should be scheduled at the end of the second year (see general second-year review opens in a new tab 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 fall of the third year (see the Doctoral Forms page for the Second-Year Review Extension form opens in a new tab). 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 (three faculty members total) selected by the advisor and the student ( 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 in order 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" opens in a new tab for more detailed information about the content and expectations for the QP.)  See FAQs opens in a new tab below for more information. 

The qualifying paper (QP) must be a work of original research.  In carrying out the QP study, the student should address a research question by collecting and analyzing original data or primary materials, or by analyzing 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 adviser, has identified as appropriate for the research undertaken. 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 publication guidelines of the identified journal; thus 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:

• A 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). Student should submit a cover memo specifically indicating how the revisions addressed concerns indicated during the review. The Office of Academic Affairs 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 be thinking 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. Students will at a minimum have identified possible questions they might pursue initial study designs. Depending upon 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 in possible research areas and think about a study they could design to answer an interesting and useful 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 in order to understand in more detail 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 vary because of these factors and other individual differences.

CTE: QP 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. You can also do a QP with an existing dataset, which means you will not have to collect your own data. As with all other questions about the QP, check with your advisor.

Where can I find examples of successful QPs? Ask your advisor if they have examples of successful QPs you can see. Keep in mind that different advisors can have different criteria regarding length, scope, and other features. 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 provides support for 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 2 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 to carry out your dissertation research. Second, your dissertation can comprise 3 or 4 standalone and ready-to-submit-for-publication manuscripts rather than a single long 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 up a QP will provide you with useful experience in producing this type of writing. 

* Consult with your advisor about 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. (Format Requirements for Your Dissertation or Thesis | Student Services opens in a new tab)

CTE: Published Papers and Multiple Authorship

The inclusion of 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 review of the literature 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 role that the dissertation author had in the research and production of the published paper. The student must have a major contribution to the research and writing of papers included 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 normal specifications that would 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 with respect to copyright and public release of the material. Be sure to discuss copyright clearance and embargo options with your co-authors and your adviser well in advance of preparing your thesis for submission.

The Committee on Developmental and Psychological Sciences, one of three Area Committees within the GSE, is responsible for graduate training and research leading to the Ph.D. degree.

The program in Developmental and Psychological Sciences (DAPS) emphasizes disciplined inquiry aimed at understanding psychological functioning and/or human development in relation to all forms of formal and informal learning and teaching contexts. The goal of the program is to develop theory and research for the improvement of educational practice in education. Consequently, faculty and student research is centrally concerned with the psychology of learning, teaching, socialization, and developmental processes as well as with research on the design of learning environments and technologies for learning. The program prepares students for professional careers in scholarly research and in teaching. Students in the program acquire knowledge and expertise in several substantive domains of scientific psychology, as well as, research methodology, and embrace the highest scientific, professional and ethical standards.

Historically, psychological research in education has often been divided into several categories with labels such as Educational Psychology, Counseling Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Educational Measurement, and the like. In some graduate training programs there are further subdivisions; within Educational Psychology, for example, research on Learning and Instruction has often been distinguished from research on Teaching and Teacher Education. These subcategories persist because they identify well-known professional associations, societies, and scientific journals, and DAPS graduates may choose to affiliate with one or another of them. However, DAPS faculty believe that imposing divisional boundaries can also stifle new initiatives, syntheses, and other evolutionary changes in the field. For example, new research on the design of developmentally appropriate, technology-supported learning environments cuts across several categories. There are also new initiatives that combine psychology with other disciplines such as neuroscience. Importantly, in DAPS as a doctoral research training program, faculty treat all such divisions as identifying individual specializations within the general program, not as formally separate subprograms or sub-areas.

Faculty expect all DAPS students to develop an understanding and appreciation of psychological and developmental research in education in the broadest sense, as well as to develop their own specialty within it. This means working with faculty advisors to develop one’s own specialization statement. It also means building a graduate study plan that ranges across the major domains of psychology relevant to education as it is broadly defined.

Overview

The Preliminary Review is a comprehensive review of all aspects of a student’s graduate work. The review allows the faculty to consider the breadth and depth of the student’s preparation to date and the adequacy of future plans for coursework, research experience and professional training. The intent of the Preliminary Review is 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. Once these are satisfactorily addressed, as determined by the DAPS Area Chair in consultation with the student’s Academic Advisor, results are posted on the students’ record on Axess.

What is the DAPS first-year review?

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. 

When does it happen?

During the spring quarter of your first year or the fall quarter of your second year. The timing should be discussed with and approved by your advisor in advance, especially if you opt for the fall quarter of your second year. If you decide on the fall quarter, you must email, CC’ing your primary advisor, to the Doctoral Programs Officer, Jeremy Alexander Edwards (drjae003@stanford.edu). This email should explain (a) why you are requesting an extension and (b) your revised proposed completion date for the review. 

Who attends?

At least three faculty. Typically, this means your primary advisor, secondary advisor(s), and one or more additional faculty with whom you have engaged through a research project or substantive classwork. See the GSE doctoral handbook page on committee composition opens in a new tab for more information. 

There is often continuity between a student’s committee selection for their first-year review, qualifying paper (QP), and dissertation committee. For this reason, it may make sense to select first-year review committee members who you anticipate continuing to work with throughout your doctoral journey. That said, plenty of students change their committee composition over the course of their PhD milestones, so no need to worry that your future committees must be the same as your first-year committee. 

How long is the review?

The length of the first-year review is not currently specified in the doctoral handbook, but DAPS first-year students can expect their reviews to last 60 minutes. 

What do I need to do to prepare? By when? 

The first step is to schedule the date for your first-year review. Once you and your primary advisor have identified several potential dates, it is recommended that you reach out to your other committee members via email at least two months in advance to identify a date that works for all. If you are scheduling the review during fall quarter, the first or second week of classes is generally a good time, since everyone's summer schedules vary a lot. 

Unless the primary advisor suggests holding the meeting in his/her office, it is the student’s responsibility to schedule a room in ANKO or Raikes (or create a Zoom link, if the meeting is virtual). It is advised to send reminder emails to all committee members a week in advance of the review and the morning of the meeting. Reminder emails should include the meeting start/end time as well as the meeting location. 

The next step is to compile your portfolio. Send your portfolio to your review committee via email at least two weeks prior to your review. Many faculty appreciate a physical binder with these docs and tabs for handy use during the meeting. Key portfolio contents include: 

• Preliminary Graduate Study Program (GSP): the classes you have taken/will take to meet all PhD degree requirements. The GSP and other forms can be found here opens in a new tab.

• PhD transcript: can be downloaded from Axess. 

• DAPS-specific materials (more information available in the handbook opens in a new tab):

  • Original statement of purpose from admissions application: can be retrieved from Doctoral Programs Officer if needed. 

  • Professional statement: typically 2-3 pages long, this document describes your developing capabilities as a researcher and teacher. It covers (1) experiences to date, (2) priorities for further development, and (3) future plans. If your review takes place in the fall of your second year, it should reflect experiences during the summer of your first year as well.

  • Curriculum vitae

  • Major course papers/exams, accompanied by an explanation of why these materials were chosen and course instructor feedback (when possible).

  • Research products: publications, conference presentations, reports, and any other papers on which you are an author/co-author.

  • Work statements: brief statements from two faculty describing the nature and caliber of the student’s work. These statements should be requested from faculty with whom the student has worked or taken a class during the first year, but who will not be present at the first-year review meeting. These statements are optional, but are encouraged for students who have done substantive work with faculty who will not be present at the first-year review.

Though not formally required in the handbook, many DAPS students include a brief cover letter in their portfolio highlighting the most pressing 3-5 questions they would like their committee’s feedback on throughout the review. Example cover letters (and samples of all other portfolio materials) can be found in this Google Drive folder opens in a new tab containing past DAPS students’ first-year review portfolios (as well as other milestone materials).

What happens during the review?

The review typically begins with the student presenting a brief summary (~ 5 min) of (a) key reflections from their first year as a PhD student and (b) their current research interests, followed by their most pressing questions for their faculty committee. Faculty then offer thoughts on the students’ progress to date and responses to the students’ questions. Typically, your primary advisor manages the flow of the meeting, solicits the input from other two faculty members, and ensures that the committee discusses the student’s research experience, coursework, and other relevant opportunities (e.g., fellowships, teaching). However, the student should come prepared with questions for their committee members and actively solicit advice. 

Towards the end of the meeting, students can expect to be asked to step out while faculty converse, and then invited to rejoin for final takeaways. 

What happens after the review? 

After the review, faculty are responsible for filling out the Preliminary Review Summary Sheet opens in a new tab, which synthesizes recommendations received from faculty during the review. All faculty members of the students committee must sign (digitally or by hand) the sheet as well as the approved GSP. Both documents are then submitted to the Doctoral Programs Officer. 

It is also common to schedule a debrief with your primary advisor to discuss how to implement the feedback you received during your first-year review. This debrief can take place directly after your first-year review or, if you would like time to process, within a week or so of your 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 opens in a new tab document, which further explains the preliminary (first-year) review and answers commonly held questions. 

The purpose of the Second-Year Specialty Review is to enable the faculty to determine whether students are prepared to move on to dissertation research. The review includes 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 second-year Specialty Review is intended to reflect a judgment that the student is capable of doing dissertation-level work, not only in his/her area of specialization, but also in DAPS more generally. Upon successful completion of the Specialty Review, students must apply for Advancement to Candidacy. See the Second-Year Review section opens in a new tab for general requirements that apply to Second-Year Reviews for all Areas. 

The standard DAPS speciality review lasts 90 minutes. Towards the end of the review, 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 chosen by the primary advisor in collaboration with the student, to determine that his/her research competence is at a level sufficient to begin a dissertation study, 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 her/his dissertation research. Also considered is the student’s ability to integrate, evaluate and communicate the research literature on a substantive topic. On occasion, 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 3-5 most pressing questions that the student would like to discuss during their review. Compared to the questions that 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 summary statement of evidence that any outstanding requirements (e.g., completion of Incompletes, recommended course work) of the Preliminary Review have been satisfied. This statement should be co-signed by the advisor.

• 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 Intranet.

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 his/her 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 itself provides the student with the opportunity to gain feedback and guidance from the faculty readers regarding his/her 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 approaches the preparation of the Qualifying Paper. Some possible alternatives include: A major 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, contains figures and tables.

All students should prepare a brief (roughly 20 minute) PowerPoint presentation of their Qualifying Paper and be prepared to present these slides at the start of the discussion of their Qualifying Paper 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 (total of three faculty members). Provide the date and committee composition to the Doctoral Programs Officer. See the Committee Composition section opens in a new tabfor more information.

• Portfolio materials should be distributed to Review Committee members at least two weeks in advance of 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 on behalf of the committee 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 then submits to the Doctoral Programs Officer along with a signed final GSP.

• The results of the Specialty Review will be posted on the students’ record on AXESS. When appropriate, the advisor will further discuss the results of the final review 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), then 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 opens in a new tab document, which further explains the specialty (second-year) review and answers commonly held questions. 

See the DAPS Second-Year Research Symposium FAQ opens in a new tab document for additional information about DAPS students' second-year research projects.

DAPS Planning the Dissertation Research

The Dissertation Proposal may be developed and submitted 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 discussion if appropriate of probable uses of the results expected and potential pitfalls in the approach taken. 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 that the student might prepare with the consultation of their advisor. The budget should offer a realistic estimate of the costs (e.g., travel, copying, transcription of interviews, etc.) associated with carrying out the study to completion. If possible, sources of funding to assist the student with the dissertation should be provided.

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 discussion 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 in Cubberley Library.

DAPS faculty and students have also collaborated to create this dissertation proposal FAQ opens in a new tab document, which further explains the dissertation proposal for DAPS students and answers commonly held questions. 

See the general Dissertation Proposal section opens in a new tab for additional information. 

Mobile multimedia computing devices, networks, and applications are now pervasive throughout society, whether in schools, homes, work, or communities, as new tools for enabling and augmenting cultural practices, such as formal education, informal learning, and collaborative work. Computational and communication tools also provide new instruments for investigative research on cognition, learning, and social interaction. Integrating computing, AI, and new digital media offers tools for more profound analyses of learning and teaching situations and designs for novel learning, teaching, and assessment architectures. Learning Sciences Research is dedicated to systematically studying and designing the cultural, psychological, and technological processes that support learning and its improvement through learning environment designs.

Learning scientists seek to understand and shape how knowledge, tools, networks, and multiple contexts of socio-cultural experience and layers of social structures enable learning and collaboration.

Our program seeks to integrate student learning of three foundational contributions to the Learning Sciences: The three foundations are theory and research in Culture, Cognition, and Computing. The Learning Sciences and Technology Design Program pays constructive and critical pedagogical attention to these issues by integrating these three foundational areas in its core coursework and methodological foundations.

Culture: Deepening understanding of the ubiquitous social, material, contextual, and cultural dynamics of being and learning in situations ranging from classrooms to out-of-school settings to research-practitioner partnerships, including issues of differential access to power.

Cognition: Articulating scientific models of the structures and processes of knowing, learning, and teaching of organized knowledge, skills, and understanding, from the brain to behavior and from human to machine intelligence.

Computing: Supporting learning, teaching, and collaboration processes through theory-guided design, construction, and uses of multimedia computing, communications, sensing, and human-centered AI.

The Vision Statement of the International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS) provides an illuminating introduction to this field. Also see the Cambridge University Handbook of the Learning Sciences (2015, 2nd edition; 2022, 3rd edition) and the International Handbook of the Learning Sciences (2018).

Stanford’s Learning Sciences and Technology Design program is one of the leading global programs in this rapidly emerging field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_sciences opens in a new tab). To prepare scholars with expertise in research and design methodologies relevant to technology-enhanced learning environments, the Learning Sciences and Technology Design (LSTD) curriculum includes courses on learning, research, and design, coupled with integrative seminars and explicit apprenticeship activities in research with faculty. The LSTD curriculum builds upon current GSE Area requirements. Students admitted to the LSTD program, and one of the CTE, DAPS, or SHIPS Program Areas need to fulfill the requirements in the first year of coursework (and in subsequent years) for their applicable Area and their Area-specific milestones while simultaneously participating in the “community of learning” for two cohorts: LSTD and either CTE, DAPS, or SHIPS (as applicable).

The curriculum also assumes that students will develop particular expertise in learning, design research, computer science, engineering, or a cognate field—such as psychology, linguistics, human-computer interaction (HCI), machine learning, neuroscience, or data science—as their PhD minor. Students may also elect to design with their faculty advisor(s) the GSE Interdisciplinary Distributed Minor (IDDM), which includes a minimum of 20 course units from non-GSE departments at the 200-level or greater taken at Stanford.

The first LSTD program year emphasizes the development of prerequisite knowledge, typically in courses within the school and university offerings. Students primarily work within the requirements of their Area (e.g., CTE, DAPS, or SHIPS) while developing additional competencies needed for LSTD. Student experiences in the second year and beyond focus more on integrating the sciences of learning and technology design. These years emphasize the intertwining of distinct competencies and GSE Area perspectives in applying theoretical, research, and design competencies to the studied learning.

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).

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 “GSE Courses” Section opens in a new tab  for additional information about course 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.

Students in RILE will complete the core and methodological requisite courses in their base area (CTE, DAPS, SHIPS.), as well as complete a master’s or minor outside the GSE as is required for all GSE doctoral students.  RILE students are expected to participate in a regular RILE colloquium seminar and select 5 courses that fit RILE’s distribution requirements.  RILE students should take the Colloquium (EDUC 489) during the Autumn, Winter and Spring Quarters of the first year, 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.  The RILE courses may double count with courses that satisfy other area and school requirements, as well as come from outside the school (e.g., CCSRE) to keep the overall course burden on students and faculty manageable.  The suggested study plan should include courses in each of three main areas: (1) Issues of race in education; (2) Studies of inequality and schooling; and (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.

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.