CERG experience of PhD Oral exam

Penny Sanderson psanderson@itee.uq.edu.au
14 December 2007

Here I outline my experience at mounting the School of Psychology's first PhD Oral assessment in approximately two decades.

Please note that this document is a personal view and should not replace official UQ documentation of the procedures.

Official information about PhD Oral assessments is available on the UQ Graduate School Thesis Examination website. On the website are also listed the pedagogical and procedural advantages of the oral exam.

This oral examination was very successful from both the technical and procedural point of view, and was completed within about 80 minutes. I found that the UQ Graduate School was exceptionally supportive of our initiative in putting together the oral exam and they were very helpful throughout the process. Many aspects of the process are flexible, as long as there is prior consultation with the UQ Graduate School. However I did find little inconsistencies and puzzles that I will highlight here and suggest workarounds.

Considerations

PhD candidates have the right to request an oral examination, regardless of the school they are in. The UQ Graduate School does not allow schools to have a blanket policy against having oral exams. The main considerations for a school in deciding whether to grant an oral examination, when requested, are as follows.

Expense. There may be expenses involved in bringing examiners to UQ or, alternatively, in using teleconferencing to connect people for the oral exam. Unless the School has a budget allocation for oral exams (Psych does not) the candidate's advisor will be expected to pay for any expenses.
Workload. Arranging an oral exam involves scheduling the exam and arranging the means of communication if a teleconference is involved. Unless such work is part of the job description of an administrator (in Psych it is not) then such arrangements will fall to the candidate's advisor.

Because the process for PhD Candidate Stas Krupenia was novel for the school, and the school did not wish to carry expenses or workload, I carried the expenses and organisational workload.

Remote locations of participants

The oral examination can be performed even when the candidate and the examiners are at remote locations. In practice, it is not required for "at least one" examiner to be "physically present", as suggested on the UQ Graduate School website.

For example, in the Krupenia oral exam, the people involved were at five different locations, connected via Telstra International Conferencing. It was very straightforward to receive permission from the Dean of the Graduate School for the arrangement. For most oral examinations at least one party will be at a remote location.

Convenor -- Prof Cindy Gallois, at UQ
Chair of Examiners -- Dr Phil Grove, at UQ
Examiner A -- Prof Nadine Sarter, in Ann Arbor MI, USA
Examiner B -- Prof Chris Wickens, in Boulder CO, USA
Candidate -- Stas Krupenia, at the Technion, Israel
Principal Advisor -- Prof Penelope Sanderson, at UQ
Associate Advisor 1 -- A/Prof Marcus Watson, at QH Herston
Associate Advisor 2 -- Dr John McLean (not attending)
Chair, School of Psychology Postgraduate Committee -- A/Prof Andrew Neal, at UQ

Process

The process is as follows:

SECURE PERMISSION FOR ORAL EXAM. Candidate consults with Head of School and Postgraduate Committee Chair about their intention to request an oral exam before submitting the Notice of Submission form. Considerations relating to expense and workload are sorted out.
SUBMIT NOTICE OF SUBMISSION. Candidate submits Notice of Submission form to the Graduate School four weeks before thesis submission. (I cannot see a Notice of Submission form currently on the Graduate School website that is specific to oral exams and I cannot see an "oral" box to tick on the current Notice of Submission form. It seems to have changed. Annotate the standard Notice of Submission form with a request for an oral exam until this is fixed up.)
SUBMIT PRE-EXAMINATION FORM (ORAL). Advisor completes Pre-Examination Form (Oral). On this form the Examiners, the Chair of Examiners, and the oral exam Convenor are identified. The Advisor identifies and lists the Examiners. Pass the form to the Chair of the Postgraduate Committee, who will identify and list the Convenor and the Chair of Examiners.
- Advisor should identify examiners who can return initial reports in the timeframe requested, and who are willing to take part in the oral examination process. It is important that the examiners will return the report at least two weeks prior to the oral examination date, so the candidate has time to consider and respond to the examiners' comments. (Two weeks are also required by the UQ Graduate School).
- It actually helps if the Advisor can identify the Convenor. The Convenor has to be from other school, and for practical purposes has to be someone familiar with convening oral exams. Chemical Engineering and BACS have considerable experience as most of their PhD examinations are done via oral defence. Prof Cindy Gallois convened Stas Krupenia's oral and has convened other orals.
SUBMIT THESIS. Candidate submits five (5) physical copies of the thesis to the Theses Office of the UQ Graduate School. Keep an eye on the new electronic pdf submission rules, as this will change.
DETERMINE ORAL DATE. The UQ Graduate School gives examiners seven weeks to return their initial assessments. As soon as you know the date on which the examiners should return their reports (Theses office can tell you) then work with Convenor, Chief of Examiners, Candidate and Associate Advisors to find a date for the oral defence. Continue to emphasize to the examiners that the candidate will need a certain number of weeks to respond to their comments, so the reports must come in on the date that the UQ Graduate School has specified, not the oral defence date. With Stas, we inserted about two weeks between the return of the examiners' reports and the oral defence.
WHEN REPORTS RETURNED, FINALISE ORAL DATE. Once the examiners' reports are in, advisor firms up the date and time of the oral and ensures that all committee members understand when the oral examination will take place, given any differences in time zones. See details below of how a website was used to keep everyone up to date, rather than sending around lots of confusing emails.
HOLD ORAL EXAM. The oral examination takes place at the appointed time. It includes the following phases:
- Teleconference/Skype hookup (if needed).
- Summary by Convenor of goals and procedure for oral.
- Open seminar by Candidate. Good idea if the Candidate gives overview of study but also concentrates on how the Examiners' reports have been/will be responded to. In Stas Krupenia's case, he circulated his Powerpoint presentation in advance. People either printed it out to follow along, or followed it on their computers. Stas identified each slide by number on his Powerpoint document, and during the presentation called out each slide number as he advanced.
- Closed session with Convenor, Chair of Examiners, Examiners, and Candidate. Candidate is questioned. This is an opportunity to clarify requests for revisions.
- Closed deliberation, with Convenor, Chair of Examiners, and Examiners only. Outcome is determined.
- Concluding meeting, with Convenor, Chair of Examiners, Examiners, Candidate, and Advisory team. Candidate is advised of the outcome.
PREPARE AND SUBMIT THESIS RECOMMENDATION. Chair of Examiners completes the Thesis Recommendation form THO1 (Recommendation on Examiners' Reports - Oral Examinations) for forward processing. Note that the "A" and "B" referred to on that form are Examiner A and Examiner B, and are not related to the level of recommendation that the examiners make on their own reports.
REVISION PROCESS. Candidate makes any revisions required. Once the revisions are approved by the Chair of Examiners, the school signs the TH2 (Recommendation to Confer Award) form (as per non-oral exams) and forwards it to the UQ Graduate School. The process completes as for the normal PhD examination process.

Supporting webpage

In Stas Krupenia's case, I created a webpage to be used as a resource for coordination: See http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~cerg/krupenia.htm. The webpage evolved over the week or so before the oral as we finalised arrangements. The website included the following:

Reminder of the date and time of the oral for the different time zones
Outline of the procedure for the oral, including who is present for which part
Downloadable version of Stas' Powerpoint presentation for the oral
Tips for handling teleconference problems
Introductions to all the people involved -- their photos, email, phone numbers, and backup phone numbers.

Whenever I made an update to the webpage I emailed all involved with a message titled "Krupenia Oral --UPDATE #1" "Krupenia Oral -- UPDATE #2" and so on, with a brief summary of the update and a link to the webpage.

I asked people to print out a copy of the webpage and to have it handy during the oral to follow the procedure, handle any teleconference problems, etc.

Technology

We used the simplest and most robust means of linking our participants, so ensure the oral would be a success.

Skype is the least expensive and most convenient way to handle remote participants. I would recommend using it if you can.
We used a Telstra International Conferencing hookup simply because it was clear that one of our examiners was not familiar with Skype and would not have appropriate support to use Skype during the oral. For 90 mins the teleconference cost about $700 (five locations, three countries, four timezones). However we were very well supported by Telstra, and the process of having people withdraw from and reenter the conference as the oral process demanded was very easy.
Advanced teleconferencing or webconferencing with video feeds from each participant and with the advancement of slides under Candidate control is a further possibility. However, not all participants necessarily have access to such facilities, or to effective technical support if there are problems or drop-outs.

We circulated Stas' powerpoint presentation 24 hours in advance to Convenor, Chief Examiner, and the two Examiners, so they could print it out and peruse it. If they wanted, they could also follow it on their computers. During his presentation, Stas simply asked people to "move to slide 10" or "move to slide 11" and it worked well.

Whatever technology you use, make sure that you have covered all bases in terms of what to do if it fails. You should rehearse reestablishing net meetings if using Skype, and ensure that you are able to contact all participants through other means in real time if the teleconference/Skype means of communications fails.

Photos

Photo taken during the Open Seminar part of the oral (Tuesday 27 November, 2007).

Seated around table from left to right are Dr Phil Grove (Chair of Examiners), Prof Cindy Gallois (Convenor), five of the seven public attendees of the Open Seminar, Prof Penny Sanderson (Principal Advisor). (Candidate had also made a public presentation on his thesis the week before to about 20 colleagues at the Technion in Israel).
Present remotely through the telephone in the centre of the table, operating in conference mode, were Candidate (Stas Krupenia), Examiner A (Prof Nadine Sarter), Examiner B (Prof Chris Wickens), and Associate Advisor (A/Prof Marcus Watson).
As the first photo shows, the candidate's presentation is being projected onto the wall of the conference room, but most attendees are following the printed copies provided.

Another view of the conference room during the Candidate's Open Seminar.