The focus and substance of formative comment provided by PhD examiners

In practice and process PhD examination is distinctive, reflecting the high expectations of students whose learning has been directed to their becoming researchers. This article builds on previous research on the examination of Australian theses that revealed that examiners in Science (n = 542) and...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Studies in higher education (Dorchester-on-Thames) 2014-01, Vol.39 (6), p.983-1000
Main Authors: Holbrook, Allyson, Bourke, Sid, Fairbairn, Hedy, Lovat, Terence
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Academic writing
Australia
Collective action
Comparative Analysis
Data analysis
discipline comparison
Doctoral degrees
Doctoral Dissertations
Doctoral Programs
Doctoral theses
Education
Education systems
Educational Research
Educational tests & measurements
Examinations
examiner reports
Examiners
Expectation
Feedback
Feedback (Response)
Foreign Countries
Formative evaluation
Graduate Students
Graduate studies
Higher education
Intellectual Disciplines
Learner Engagement
Mann Whitney U Test
PhD examination
Reflection
Science education
Sciences
Student Evaluation
Students
Verbal Tests
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In practice and process PhD examination is distinctive, reflecting the high expectations of students whose learning has been directed to their becoming researchers. This article builds on previous research on the examination of Australian theses that revealed that examiners in Science (n = 542) and Education (n = 241) provide a substantial proportion of formative comment in their reports, much of which is constructed in a way that anticipates reflective engagement by the student. Detailed examination of the formative text identified nine categories of comment directed at three collective groupings of weaknesses or flaws related to less favourable recommendation. The flaws are related to 'fundamentals', 'project' and 'argument'. There were discipline differences, including significantly more comment in Science, indicating that the candidate should attend further to the data and analysis in their project and the fundamentals of presentation. In Education there was more emphasis on improving argument.
ISSN:0307-5079
1470-174X
DOI:10.1080/03075079.2012.750289