--

2 (1) 2012

Graduate student scholars embarking on research: assessment of masters’ minor theses in an Australian University


Author - Affiliation:
Dat Bao - Monash University
Ilia Leikin - Monash University
Corresponding author: Dat Bao - kim.npt@ou.edu.vn

Abstract
Higher-degree thesis assessment has recently been receiving a fair amount of attention from the education research community, examiners’ reports being the starting point for many of the inquiries. Most discourse focuses on PhD dissertations and tends to neglect less advanced academic works such as Honours’ theses, Master’s theses and Master’s minor theses. Writing at these levels is, however, of vital importance considering the fact that many students go through it not only to lay the foundation for their early research experiences but also to produce the good results that allow students to get accepted and proceed into PhD programs. This research article presents a systematic evaluation and analysis of 47 reports from examiners of students’ M.Ed. minor theses written by graduate students at Monash University in Australia. Employing thesis examination reports as data, the project investigates the strengths and weaknesses of the Masters’ minor theses written. Among different criteria on which a thesis is judged, choice of suitable topic and overall quality of presentation have been addressed relatively well, while data analysis, interpretation and literature review appeared to be the most difficult. Lack of critical thinking was identified as a common weakness, and writing quality played a significant role in deciding the outcome. There was generally a good level of consistency in assessment practices across different reports, with the exception of minor rules and guidelines. Certain influence was also exerted on the evaluation process by examiner’s background and level of engagement with the topic.

Keywords
assessment; Master’s theses; examination reports; student researchers

Full Text:
PDF

References

Council of Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies in Australia (May 2011). Conflict of Interest Guidelines. Retrieved at http://www.une.edu.au/researchservices/forms/ddogs-conflict-of-interest-guidelines.pdf on 25 September 2012.


Devos, A. & Somerville, M. (2012). What constitutes doctoral knowledge? Exploring issues of power and subjectivity in doctoral examination. Australian Universities’ Review Vol. 54 (1), 2012, 47-54.


Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains. American Psychologist Vol. 53 (4), 449-455.


Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Fairbairn, H. & Lovat, T. (2007): Examiner comment on the literature review in Ph.D. theses. Studies in Higher Education Vol. 32 (3), 337-356.


Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Lovat, T. & Dally, K. (2004). Qualities and Characteristics in the Written Reports of Doctoral Thesis Examiners. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology Vol 4, 2004, 126-145.


Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Lovat, T., Fairbairn, H. (2008). Consistency and inconsistency in PhD thesis examination. Australian Journal of Education Vol. 52 (1) Apr 2008, 36-48.


Johnston, S. (1997). Examining the examiners: an analysis of examiners’ reports on doctoral theses. Studies in Higher Education Vol. 24 (3) 1997, 333-347.


Kiley, M. & Mullins, G. (2004). Examining the examiners: How inexperienced examiners approach the assessment of research theses. International Journal of Educational Research Vol. 41 (2004), 121–135.


Kumar, V. & Stracke, E. (2011). Examiners’ reports on theses: Feedback or assessment? Journal of English for Academic Purposes Vol. 10, 2011, 211–222.


Leshem, S. & Trafford, V. (200&) Overlooking the conceptual framework. Innovations in Education and Teaching International Vol. 44 (1) Feb 2007, 93-105.


Lovat, T. (2004). ‘Ways of knowing’ in doctoral examination. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology Vol. 4, 2004, 146-152.


Lovat, T., Monfries, M. & Morrison, K. (2004). Ways of knowing and power discourse in doctoral examination. International Journal of Educational Research Vol. 41 2004, 163–177.


Lundgren, S.M., Halvarsson, M. & Robertsson, B. (2008). Quality assessment and comparison of grading between examiners and supervisors of Bachelor theses in nursing education. Nurse Education Today Vol. 28, 24–32.


Mullins, G. & Kiley, M. (2002): ‘It’s a PhD, not a Nobel Prize’: How experienced examiners assess research theses. Studies in Higher Education Vol. 27 (4), 369-386.


Noble, K. A. (1994). Changing Doctoral Degrees: An International Perspective. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.


Pearce, L. (2005). How to examine a thesis. Maidenhead. Oxford University Press.


Reed, J.H. (1998). Effect of a model for critical thinking on student achievement in primary source document analysis and interpretation, argumentative reasoning, critical thinking disposition, and history content in a community college history course. PhD dissertation. University of South Florida December 1998.


Scriven, M. (1985). Critical for survival. National Forum Vol. 55, 9-12.


Tinker, P. & Jackson, C. (2000). Examining the doctorate: institutional policy and the PhD examination process in Britain. Studies in Higher Education Vol. 25, 167-180.


Witte, S. P., & Faigley, L. (1981). Coherence, Cohesion, and Writing Quality. Language Studies and Composing, 32(2), 189-204.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.