Annual Academic Performance Evaluation

The academic performance and progress of each graduate student in the Experimental Psychology program is reviewed annually at a formal meeting of the Experimental Program faculty. This meeting takes place at the end of each Spring semester, although in special cases such evaluations may be held at the end of the Fall semester. Each student’s progress in research, and in general academic and professional performance is carefully evaluated by the entire experimental faculty.

Each student receives an “Annual Evaluation” form on which they provide performance/progress information and self-evaluation; the student sends this completed form and an updated curriculum vita (CV) to their major faculty advisor. The CV should be up-to-date and accomplishments for the academic year (since the last review) should be highlighted in yellow. The major advisor adds their comments to the student’s annual review and all program faculty meet to discuss each student’s progress in the program.

The DET oversees the review process and adds comments to the student’s annual review, such as recommended areas of focus for the next academic year. Students are encouraged to use this constructive feedback to improve their performance, keeping in mind that the intent of the feedback is to help students progress at a reasonable pace through the program, and to become strong researchers and competent professionals who will be competitive in the job market.

Satisfactory progress and performance through the program is based on the following:

1. Completing coursework in a timely manner.
2. Maintaining at least 3.0 GPA.
3. Satisfactorily completing goals related to Psych 700/800 memos/credits each semester.
4. Timely completion of MS and PhD requirements (e.g., thesis, preliminary exam, dissertation).
5. Completing planned professional activities which include the following (minimally):

Planned Professional Activities (item 5 above) include the following, minimally:

Upon entry into the program, and in consultation with the major faculty advisor, each student needs to identify professional activities they will complete that meet minimum program expectations. These activities are to be completed in collaboration with the student’s major advisor unless otherwise approved by the advisor. The student’s progress towards these goals is evaluated during the annual review process each year. These are minimum expectations for graduation; students are strongly encouraged to complete these products as soon as possible, and prior to the preliminary examination.

Written Research Product (choose one of the following options):

1. Option 1: First-authored manuscript of an empirical study
   • Submission of a manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal that describes the results of an original empirical research study (but can use preexisting data). Acceptance for publication is not required, but manuscript review is required (i.e. the manuscript cannot be desk-rejected). The journal must conduct peer review and cannot require a fee for review or publication unless approved by the student’s major advisor and the DET.
2. Option 2: Principal Investigator (PI) on a research grant or fellowship proposal
   • Submission of a major grant/fellowship proposal in support of the student’s research. Obtaining grant funding is not required. The proposal must include a scientific literature review, specific aims, and research proposal/strategy (4-6 page minimum). Examples: NIH Predoctoral Fellowship (F31), NSF Graduate Research Fellowship, ADARP graduate student grant. Student awards, departmental awards/support (e.g., Marchionne Research Awards, Adam’s Awards), and travel awards do not fulfill this option.

Other Scholarly Product (choose one of the following options):

1. Option 1: First-authored oral conference presentation
   • Acceptance and presentation of a first-authored oral presentation (e.g., symposium, paper session) at a national or international research conference. The presentation should be based on original empirical research (but can be based on preexisting data), and the work must be formally reviewed and accepted for presentation at the conference.
2. Option 2: Two first-authored conference posters
   • Acceptance and presentation of a first-authored poster at a national or international research conference. Presentations should be based on original empirical research (but can be based on preexisting data), and the work must be formally reviewed and accepted for presentation at the conference.
3. Option 3: Additional manuscript (first- or co-authored)
   • Submission of a manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal to which the student made a substantial contribution. The manuscript can report the outcomes of an original empirical study, or be a conceptual/theoretical article, or a review article. Acceptance for publication is not required, but manuscript-review is required (i.e. the manuscript cannot be desk-rejected). The journal must conduct peer review and cannot require a fee for review or publication unless approved by the student’s major advisor and the DET.
4. Option 4: Additional research grant or fellowship proposal (PI or Co-I)
   • Submission of a grant/fellowship proposal to which the student made a substantial contribution. Grant funding is not required. The proposal must include a scientific literature review, specific aims, and research proposal/strategy. Examples: in addition to those listed under A, smaller grants such as those from professional organizations are acceptable. Departmental awards/support and travel awards are not included.

Psych 700/800 Memos:

To clarify expectations for student performance in regard to earning research credits (Psych 700 and 800 research credits), the student, in consultation with their major advisor, will complete a memo at the beginning of each semester (including summer session if applicable) outlining minimum requirements for successful completion (passing with an “S”). These memos outline expectations for achieving program milestones (e.g., thesis proposal/defense) in addition to other research-related tasks independent of their thesis/dissertation. Failure to complete all outlined requirements will result in a grade of “U”. Per WSU Graduate School policy, two semesters of “U” grades in Psych 700/800 will result in dismissal from the program. Students and advising faculty should review guidance from the Graduate School regarding the scope of overlap between research credits and assistantship duties.

At the time of the preliminary exam (described in the Doctoral Degree section), the student will update their preliminary exam committee on their progress towards meeting the professional activity expectations outlined above. Students who have not yet met these expectations will need to integrate these products into their Psych 800 plans for their remaining semesters until the work is complete.

Remediation Policies and Procedures:

If any of the following circumstances arise, the program executive committee will discuss the issue and draft a remediation plan.

Circumstances that merit remediation

1. a student’s performance is evaluated as less than satisfactory during the course of the annual review procedure (e.g., receiving first “U” based on 700/800 memo expectations),
2. the student’s academic performance falls below the minimum acceptable level during the course of the year (e.g., below a 3.0 GPA),
3. the student receives a grade below a B-, or
4. the student demonstrates behaviors that are a cause for serious concern during the academic year (e.g., plagiarism; unauthorized use of AI),

The DET, the student’s major professor, and the student (and when appropriate, the assistantship supervisor) will meet to discuss the concern and the remediation plan. Following this meeting, the plan may be modified. The final plan will be presented in writing and include steps for correcting the problem, how the program can support the student in addressing the problem, criteria for satisfactorily addressing the problem, and consequences for failing to satisfactorily address the problem. After the student receives the written plan, they will meet with the DET and major professor to discuss the plan and address any questions that they have about the plan. The plan will also contain target outcomes and dates for follow-up assessments of progress. This written document will be signed by the DET, the student, and the student’s major professor, with copies given to all parties involved and placed in the student file. Throughout the remediation period, students are encouraged to meet regularly with their major professor and the DET to discuss progress with the plan. This group (DET, student, major professor) will meet on the follow-up date(s) to assess the student’s progress with the remediation plan and provide the student with feedback regarding their progress.

Based on the relevant evidence (e.g., course grades if it is an academic issue, progress on thesis/dissertation if it is an issue of failing to make appropriate progress, etc.), this group will recommend to the program executive committee that either:

1. no further remediation is necessary,
2. the student is making progress but that the remediation plan needs to be continued or adjusted, or
3. the student has not been able to remediate and may need to be terminated from the experimental psychology program.