Posted: November 16th, 2014

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPREHENSIVE EXAM

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPREHENSIVE EXAM

The total length of the written examination response document must not exceed 50 typed and double-spaced pages (not counting the title page, question pages, and the

references). Each page must have one inch margins all around and the document must use Times New Roman 12-point font. Learners may allocate the 50 pages among the

three questions (15 pages each question) being mindful of the requirement of fully addressing each question. Response pages submitted in excess of the 50-page limit

will not be assessed by the readers; only the first 50 pages
Comprehensive Examination Evaluation Rubric

The Comprehensive Examination Rubric
The criteria for evaluating written comprehensive examination responses are separated into two categories:
PART 1: Focus on Thinking (Content)

COMPREHENSIVE EXAM MANUAL
1. Content and Focus refers to the clarity of the written responses to the comprehensive examination questions. It includes a review of the appropriate literature.

Evaluators (i.e., readers) look for both clarity and brevity in the responses to each question.
2. Analysis and Critical Thinking refers to a thorough investigation, analysis, and evaluation of the literature covered. Evaluators assess thoroughness of the

discussion of the issues, relationships, and consistency in the arguments of various authors. Learners should demonstrate a deep understanding of the theory and

display their own points of view in the analysis and related discussion.
3. Logic and Flow refers to the presentation of a written response that articulates a cohesive discussion of theory and related practice in a clear manner for the

reader. The discussion should be presented with appropriate content and transition statements that allow readers to follow the writer from idea to idea.

PART 2: Focus on Communicating Ideas (Mechanics)
1. Structure and Organization refers to the development of the written response from the introduction through the conclusion. Identifying the main ideas and moving

consistently from point to point throughout the responses contribute to good organization. Evaluators should attend to how ideas are linked from the beginning of the

response to the end to create a thorough understanding for readers.
2. Writing Style refers to the choice of an appropriate professional tone and vocabulary for the audience of the written responses.
3. APA Format refers to formatting conventions for the citations and references within the written examination responses. All have adopted the APA 6 style as the

preferred formatting convention for scholarly work, including the comprehensive examination. Learners may review material on APA Style and Formatting) for more

information on the APA style guidelines.
4. Grammar, Usage and Mechanics refer to the conventions of English grammar and usage. Evaluators assess appropriate grammar, usage, and mechanics in the written

responses.

Bloom’s Taxonomy3 and the Rubric Scoring Guide

For more information about Bloom’s Taxonomy, please visit the following Web sites: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html
http://faculty.washington.edu/krumme/guides/bloom.html
The terminology developed in Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive Domain serves as the foundation for the written rubric scoring guide. Pages 5 and 6

of the written rubric display a definition of the Bloom’s Taxonomy categories.
The application of Bloom’s Taxonomy to the work of the learner in the written comprehensive examination will result in a numerical score. A scale of 2 (unacceptable)

through 10 (strong) for the “Thinking” categories and a scale of 1 (unacceptable) through 5 (strong) for the “Communication” categories create an objective, numerical

evaluation. The numerical outcome of the scoring process results in a pass/no pass for the written comprehensive examination.
(See Scoring Guide below for more information on scoring the written comprehensive examination.)
Scoring Guide
The Comprehensive Examination Evaluation Rubric is built upon a simple multi-point rating scale. The Thinking (content) part comprises 60 percent of the total score,

while the Communication (mechanics) part makes up 40 percent of the total score. The categories in the Focus on Thinking section “weigh” twice as much as those in the

Focus on Communicating Ideas section. That is, each of the three Thinking categories is evaluated on a ten-point scale from Unacceptable (2 points) to Strong (10

points), with two-point increments between adjacent categories. Each of the four Communication categories, on the other hand, is evaluated on a five-point scale from

“Unacceptable” (1 point) to “Strong” (5 points), with a one-point increment between adjacent categories. The maximum score on the written examination is 50 points (30

for Thinking and 20 for Communication), and the minimum is 10 points (6 for Thinking, and 4 for Communication). The cells of the rubric describe generally the

characteristics of the written responses evaluated by the examiners.
The score for a written comprehensive examination is obtained by adding the total scores assigned to the seven categories in the Thinking and Communication sections. A

total of 30 points is considered a passing score. Learners may achieve the passing score by varying composite scoring profiles. Learners must score 30 points or higher

on each of the three written responses from two out of the three readers to pass the examination.

APPENDIX D: COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATION RUBRIC
This Comprehensive Examination Rubric for written documents has three sections:
• The first section describes how the five scores can be used for the three criteria to evaluate a learner’s focus on thinking.
• The second section describes how the five scores can be used for the four criteria to evaluate a learner’s focus on the mechanics for communicating ideas. These two

sections have a column (in the far right) for readers to use as a worksheet to score each of the three questions and record their comments, or for the Comprehensive

Examination Facilitator/Mentor to form a composite decision from the readers.
• The third section gives definitions for: research, evaluation, synthesis, analysis, application, comprehension, knowledge, content and focus; analysis and critical

thinking; logic and flow; structure and organization; writing style; APA conventions; grammar/usage/mechanics; and plagiarism. Retain your worksheets for your records

of documentation for the examination.
Section 1. Evaluation of Learner’s Thinking
Directions: For each comprehensive examination response, select 10, 8, 6, 4, or 2 from the five possible scores for each of the three criteria (content and focus,

analysis and critical thinking, logic and flow). A score of “0” (zero) may be assigned to an answer if plagiarism is evidenced. Submit criterion scores via the online

evaluation form to contribute to the learner’s overall pass/fail result.
EVALUATION
Focus on Thinking     10
(Strong)     8
(Proficient)     6
(Satisfactory)     4
(Weak)     2
(Unacceptable)     Scores and Comments

Content & Focus     Successfully answers the question.
Thoroughly reviews the literature.
Engages Bloom’s cognitive levels of evaluation, synthesis, analysis, application, comprehension, and knowledge plus research.     Answers the question completely.
Sufficiently reviews literature.
Engages Bloom’s cognitive levels of synthesis, analysis, application, comprehension, and knowledge.     Answers the question sufficiently.
Sufficiently reviews literature.
Engages Bloom’s cognitive levels of application, comprehension, and knowledge.     Answers the question but digresses significantly, or insufficiently reviews literature.
Engages Bloom’s cognitive levels of comprehension and knowledge.     Fails to answer question and insufficiently reviews literature.
Engages Bloom’s cognitive level of knowledge.     Q1
Q2
Q3
Analysis and Critical Thinking     Exhibits strong higher-order critical thinking and analysis
Research Evaluation
(See definitions at end of document.)     Generally exhibits higher-order critical thinking and analysis.
Synthesis Analysis
(See definitions at end of document.)     Exhibits limited higher-order critical thinking and analysis.
Application
(See definitions at end of document.)     Exhibits mostly simplistic or reductive thinking and analysis.
Comprehension
(See definitions at end of document.)     Exhibits only simplistic or reductive thinking and analysis.
Knowledge
(See definitions at end of document.)     Q1
Q2
Q3

.
Logic and Flow     Development is logical and clear: all points are addressed individually and linked appropriately.     Development is logical and clear: most points

are addressed individually and linked appropriately.     Development is generally clear: points may be insufficiently linked.     Development is flawed (unsound

reasoning); points are insufficiently linked.     Development is missing or otherwise unacceptable; points are not linked.     Q1
Q2
Q3

Section 2. Evaluation of Communicating Ideas
Directions: For each comprehensive examination response, select 5, 4, 3, 2 or 1 from the five possible scores for each of the three criteria (structure and

organization, writing style, APA format, grammar/usage/mechanics). Submit criterion scores via the online evaluation form to contribute to the learner’s overall

pass/fail result.
EVALUATION     5
(Strong)     4
(Proficient)     3
(Satisfactory)     2
(Weak)     1
(Unacceptable)     Scores and Comments
Focus on Communicating Ideas    Structure and Organization     Introduction and conclusion are always effective.
Paragraphs are well-developed and have strong topic sentences.     Introduction and conclusion are generally effective.
Paragraphs are sufficiently developed; topic sentences are generally good.     Introduction and/or conclusion are merely competent.
Paragraphs are adequately developed; topic sentences are present but ineffective.     Introduction or conclusion is underdeveloped.
Paragraphs are underdeveloped; topic sentences are missing or unfocused.     Introduction and conclusion are missing.
Paragraphs are underdeveloped; topic sentences are missing.     Q1
Q2
Q3
Writing Style     Sentences are consistently clear, concise, and direct.
Tone is appropriately formal.     Sentences are generally clear, concise, and direct.
Tone is appropriately formal.     Sentences are occasionally wordy or ambiguous.
Tone is too informal for academic writing.     Sentences are generally wordy and/or ambiguous.
Tone is too informal for academic writing.     Sentences are unclear enough to impair meaning.
Tone is inappropriate and/or inconsistent.     Q1
Q2
Q3
APA Format     Excellent APA format, including citations and references.
No errors.     Appropriate APA format, including citations and references.
Infrequent errors.     Adequate APA format, including citations and references.
Frequency of errors detracts from strength of response.     Inadequate APA format, including citations and references.
Frequency of errors obstructs clarity.     Unacceptable APA format, including citations and references.
6 or more errors per page.     Q1
Q2
Q3

(continued)     Grammar/ Usage/ Mechanics     Strong
0 errors per page     Competent
1 error per page     Adequate
2 errors per page     Inadequate; clarity and meaning are impaired
3-5 errors per page     Incompetent
6 or more errors per page     Q1
Q2
Q3

Section 3. Definitions
These definitions are helpful when using the rubric for evaluating the comprehensive examination responses.
Category     Definition     Examples
Research     Conducting observations, formulating hypotheses (“if this, then that” statements), gathering data to test hypotheses, interpreting results, developing

new hypotheses to further explore ideas on a topic. Researchers describe what is, and is not, part of an observation.
Level added to Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive Domain, beyond the highest level
(7th level and more advanced than Bloom’s 6 levels)
Puts new arrangements into old or new context to observe results     What if…
If (this), then (that)…
This is present…
This is absent…
Evaluation     Explaining the value of previous analytical arrangements and subsequent synthesized arrangements
Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive Domain, highest level (6th level and most advanced of Bloom’s levels)     Judges internal evidence
Judges external criteria
Weighs alternatives to justify a decision about the best choice
Synthesis     Combining analytical components in a new way     Produces unique communication, an original

COMPREHENSIVE EXAM MANUAL Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive Domain, one lower level (5th level and more advanced than 4th level)     plan, a set of

operations, a set of abstract relations, etc.
Analysis     Breaking facts and concepts into their components
Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive Domain, one lower level (4th level and more advanced than 3rd level)     Elements, relationships
Organizational principles
Dissecting ideas to see relationships, resulting in a clarification of ideas.
The basis for the arrangement of parts helps to convey the effects of the ideas.
Application     Applying factual concepts to real life, academic specialization (scholarship), professional practice (present or anticipated), case studies from the

disciplinary field of study, and/or examples from the professional literature (juried journals)
Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive Domain, one lower level (3rd level and more advanced than 2nd level)     Using abstractions in specific

situations
Comprehension     Putting facts from the literature into one’s own words
Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive Domain, one lower level (2nd level and more advanced than 1st level)     Translation: This means; In other

words…
Interpretation: One interpretation is..; This suggests that…
Extrapolation: From this we can see that…
Knowledge     Recognizing, recalling, and repeating the facts and related trends and practices of the topic, professional discipline, or field. Absence of original

thinking about, or interpretation of, those facts.
Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive Domain, lowest level (1st and most basic level)     Specifics, Terminology, Facts, Conventions
Trends, Sequences, Classifications
Categories, Criteria, Methodology
Principles, Generalizations, Theories
Content and Focus     Answers the question(s) asked, focusing on the appropriate global and local content issues
Analysis and Critical Thinking     Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing,

synthesizing, and/or evaluating information – gathered from or generated by observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication – as a guide to belief and

action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency,

relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning:

purpose, problem or question-at-issue, assumptions, concepts, empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions, implications and consequences, objections from

alternative viewpoints, and frame of reference. Critical thinking – in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues and purposes – is incorporated in a
family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them: scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral

thinking, and philosophical thinking.
Critical thinking can be seen as having two components:
1. A set of skills to process and generate information and beliefs, and
2. The habit, based on intellectual commitment, of using those skills to guide behavior.

It is thus to be contrasted with:
1. The mere acquisition and retention of information alone (because it involves a particular way in which information is sought and treated),
2. The mere possession of a set of skills (because it involves the continual use of them), and
3. The mere use of those skills (”as an exercise”) without acceptance of their results.

Scriven, M., & Paul, R. (2007). Defining critical thinking. National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking.

http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/define_critical_thinking.cfm . Retrieved December 27, 2010.
Logic and Flow     The argument is well-structured. Groundwork is laid; accurate conclusions are drawn from the evidence used; points are argued and linked appropriately.
Logic and flow presents a good example of building a case by presenting evidence and arguing toward a conclusion that represents the evaluation level of Bloom’s

taxonomy. Lack of logic and flow would be the example of what is missing from synthesis, analysis, application, comprehension, and knowledge levels.
Structure and Organization     The response is well-structured. All parts (introduction, sections, paragraphs, conclusions) do their jobs.
Writing Style     Strong, clear sentences, appropriate academic tone.
APA Conventions     Only those conventions required by the school.
Grammar/Usage/ Mechanics     Complete sentences, accurate spelling and punctuation, free from typographical errors, etc.
Plagiarism     Use of another person’s words without giving credit to the author. Using one’s own words from a previous (published or unpublished) source. Plagiarism

can be either intentional or unintentional.

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂