There has been a slow but steady accretion of findings on doctoral assessment and examination processes over the past decade and a half. The study of Australian PhD examination reported here draws on the written reports on 301 theses across all discipline areas. Text categories identified in the reports are linked to other data including the recommendation examiners give the thesis and the final report of the committee. The assessment discourse of examiners is explored in depth with reference to high-and low-quality theses. The questions addressed are: (1) What qualities, attributes and characteristics of the thesis are examiners emphasising in their reports? (2) What form does their evaluative comment take? (3) What can the reports indicate about the relative strengths and weaknesses of a thesis and the standards examiners apply in determining a recommendation? and (4) what areas of report content and types of comment most clearly differentiate between the high-and low-quality theses? While it was evident in the reports that examiners weigh and balance many features of the thesis against their expectations to arrive at a recommendation, there were three general criteria that distinguished each of high-quality low-quality theses. r
It is rare for a PhD candidate rvho submits a rhesis for cxemin:rrion to fail outright..lf a thesis exhibits significar.rt flaws thc candidate may bc rcquited to make major rcvisions and rcsubmit the work io, r..-.xrn-ti.ation' The writtcn comments of examincrs before and after rcsubmission can provide important insights into the Process of examination and the tlualities .*"fii,.r.r, identilyin a marginal thesis' Drawing on 101 of the most rcccnt, completccl thcses "cross fields in one Australian university, this ariicle investigates the differencc's in examiner ..r--"n,.on the qualities of theset by the same candidatcs before 'and after m"lor revision and rc-submission (N = 6), and benveen these thcses and those that n'ere 'passed' at the first exatnination (N=95). Crirical comments about the literaturc revieu' and the j"gr..',o which the examincr moved into a supervisory role *."r. fo.r.td to be strong indicators of theses'at the margin" Since the 1980s there has been a growing interest in the'visibiliry'of doctorai processes, particularly with respect to supervision, but more recenrly *i,h ,.rp"., to examination. Questions are being asked that ..r.o-p"r, . .".rg. of issues from examiner selection through to the rigour an,1 cr.difility of assessment procedures (Lawson et al' 2003, pJwell and Green 2003). Many commenrarors have pointed out that doctoral examination, and doctoral study generally, is an exceedingly complex phenomenon that has yet-to be subiected to sustained and ,yrt.-"ti. research. How students achieve success, the role the supervisor plays in getting a candidate's thesis to submission stage' or through an or"i d"f."n.", ""rrd *h", consrirures quality in postgraduate research are ail areas that are receiving attention in the field of research training in higher education.Alltlsott Holbrook cl nl.There are ferv empirical studies addressing the written examination of docroral theses or dissertations in rhe Iiteratu|e. As Morley et al. (.2002) have indicated, studies of the assessment Process atld its consistency rencl ro be rare because :rccess to exatninatiot.t d.lcumentation is difficult' In addition, many universiries do nor call for extensive documentation of process. Jackson and Tinklcr (200 l) investigated examination pro..dur., a-nd student and staff resPonses to examination in the UK Th.1','1-'1"1ned documentation from 20 universities (b1sed on a stfatifieci sample of old and neu, insritutions) ancl clrerv on quesrio^nnaire.re.spo-nses fro,-,r r,,,t" 100 examiners ancl candidatcs fronr two of the'old'. With fespccr ro rhe viva (oral cxanrination) rhel' Founcl rhere w:rs 'no consensus "b.r.rr tlr"'roles'plaved by the viv:r and there rvere itrconsistencies ancl contradictions at the levels of policy and Practice (p. 364) ln Atrstralia ,r compulsory oral examination is n()t the norm, rather examinltior-r hingcs on the written cxaminer rePorts on the thesis. In an attempt to .*pl.,r. this process lvlullins ancl Kilel' Q002) collectetl inr"rvi.* cl:rta-fr-ont 30 experienccd examiners about ...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.