INFUSING EXTERNAL EXAMINERS’ REPORTS IN OPEN AND DISTANCE LEARNING POSTGRADUATE SUPERVISION

Abstract

In postgraduate studies an examiner’s report serves as a quality index of the supervision process and its output – the dissertation or thesis. This article reports selected findings of a qualitative interpretive analysis of examiners’ reports of Masters’ dissertations in one College at the University of South Africa. The purpose of this study was to ascertain, through a literature study and document analysis, the scholarly attributes expected by external examiners with a view to infusing these expectations in postgraduate supervision guidelines. The analysis uncovered a pattern in examiners’ quality expectations, concerns and commendations. Undergirded by social constructivism and principles of andragogy, the paper argues that supervisors should make these expectations known to students by incorporating them into the goals of postgraduate supervision. This can help minimise postgraduate supervision challenges encountered by students in Open and Distance Learning.

Keywords

• adult learners,examination,Open and Distance Learning,postgraduate supervision

References

1. Butcher, J. & Sieminski, S. (2006). “The challenge of a distance learning professional doctorate in education”, Open Learning, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 59-69.
2. Cantwell, R.H. & Scevak, J. (2004). “Discrepancies between the “ideal” and “passable” doctorate: Supervisors thinking on doctoral standards”, Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE). Melbourne, November 2004.
3. Carter, S. (2008). “Examining the doctoral thesis: a discussion”, Innovation in Education and Teaching International, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 365-374.
4. Cercone, K. (2008). “Characteristics of adult learners with implications for online learning design”, AACE Journal, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.137-159.
5. Chiome, C., Chabaya, R.A., Mupa, P. & Chabaya, O. (2012). “Quality research supervisory practices at a Distance: Exploring the experiences of Zimbabwe Open University Postgraduate in Education Students”, European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 1-19.
6. De Beer, M. & Masona, R.B. (2009). “Using a blended approach to facilitate postgraduate supervision”, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 213-226.
7. Delamont, S. Parry, O. & Atkinson, P. (2004). “Supervising the doctorate”. London: Open University Press.
8. Denicolo, P. (2003). “Assessing the PhD: a constructive view of criteria”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 84-91.

9. Golding, C. (2017). “Advice for writing a thesis (based on what examiners do)”, Open Review of Educational Research, Vol.4, No. 1, pp.46-60.
10. Golding, C., Sharmini, S. & Lazarovitch, A. (2014). “What examiners do: what thesis students should know”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 563-576.
11. Heydenrych, F. J. (2009). “The effect of organisational culture, discourse and occupational identity on engagement in distance delivery”, Progressio, Vol. 31, No 1&2, pp. 17-37.
12. Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Lovat, T. & Dally, K. (2004). “An investigation of inconsistencies in PhD examination decisions”. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE). Melbourne, 28 November 2004.
13. Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Lovat, T. & Fairbain, S. (2007). “Examiner comment on the literature review in PhD theses”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 337-356.
14. Ismail, A., Abiddin, N.Z., Hassan, R. & Ro’is, I. (2014). “The profound students’ supervision practice in Higher Education to enhance student development”, Higher Education Studies, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 1-6.
15. James, R., & Baldwin, G. (1999). Eleven practices of effective postgraduate supervisors”. Melbourne: Centre for the study of Higher Education and the School of Graduate Studies.
16. Johnston, S. (1997). “Examining the examiners: an analysis of examiners’ reports on doctoral theses”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 333-347.
17. Joyner, R.W. (2003). “The selection for external examiners for research degrees”, Quality assurance in Education, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 122-126.
18. Knowles, M.S., Holton, E.F., & Swanson, R.A. (2011). The Adult Learner: the definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (7 th ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
19. Kritzinger, E., & Loock, M. (2014). A critical investigation into the current shortage of information technology postgraduates produced by Unisa. http://hdl.handle.net/10500/8500 [Accessed 10.4.2018].
20. Kyvik, S., & Thune, T (2015). “Assessing the quality of PhD dissertations: A survey of external committee members”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 40, No. 5, pp. 768-782.
21. Lee, N. (2010). “Preparing for thesis and viva: some practicalities”, Nurse Researcher, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 52-59.
22. Lessing, A.C. (2009). “The examination of research dissertations and theses”. Acta Academica, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 255-272.
23. Lovat, T., Holbrook, A., & Hazel, G. (2002). What qualities are rare in examiners’ reports? http://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/lov0101589.htm [Accessed 13.4.2018]
24. Lovitts, B.E. (2005). “How to grade a dissertation”, Academe, Vol. 91, No. 6, pp. 18-23.
25. Mafa, O., & Mapolisa, T. (2012). “Supervisors’ experiences in supervising postgraduate education students’ dissertations and theses at the Zimbabwe Open University”. International Journal of Asian Social Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 10, pp. 1685-1697.
26. Mafora, P., & Lessing, A.C. (2014). “The voice of the external examiner of Masters’ dissertations, South African Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 1295-1314.
27. Malone, S. (2014). “Characteristics of adult learners”, Training and Development, Vol. 41, No. 6, pp 10-13.
28. Merriam, S.B., & Bierema, L.L. (2014). “Adult Learning: Linking theory and practice”. Jossey Bass. San Francisco.
29. Mudavanhu, Y. (2017). “Quality of literature review and discussion of findings in selected papers on integration of ICT in teaching, role of mentors, and teaching science through (STEM)”, Educational Research and Reviews, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 189-201.
30. 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, No. 4, pp. 369-386.
31. Nyika, A. (2014). “Postgraduate research methodological flaws detected at final examination stage: Who is to blame?”, South African Journal of Science, Vol. 110, No. 3 /4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/sajs.2014/20130288. [Accessed 18.8.2018].
32. Petersen, E.B. (2007). “Negotiating academicity: postgraduate research supervision as category boundary work”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 475-487.
33. Popescu, A., & Popescu, R. (2017). “Effect of undergraduate research output on faculty scholarly research impact”, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 199-213.
34. Quan-Baffour, K.P., & Vambe, M.T. (2008). “Critical issues in the supervision of postgraduate dissertations in distance education environments”, Open Education, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 1-10.
35. Russell, S.S. (2006). “An overview of adult-learning processes”, Urologic Nursing, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 349-52.
36. Sankaran, S., Swempson, P. & Hill, G. (2005). “Do research thesis examiners need training? Practitioner stories”, The Qualitative Report, Vol.10, No. 4, pp. 817-835.
37. Schulze, S. (2012). “Empowering and disempowering students in studentsupervisor relationships”, Koers-Bulletin for Christian Scholarship, Vol. 77, No. 2, Art # 47 http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/koers.v77i2.47 [Accessed 3.5.2018].
38. Schulze, S. (2011). “A survey of students’ views of supervision at Unisa,” South African Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 784-802.
39. Shenton, A.K. (2004). “Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects”, Education for Information, Vol. 22, pp. 63-75.
40. Sweeny, B. (2008). Principles of Adult Learning. Wheaton, IL. Best Practice Resources, Inc.
41. Tinkler, P., & Jackson, C. (2004). The doctoral examination process: A handbook for students, examiners and supervisors. Berkshire, UK. Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
42. Tinkler, P., & Jackson, C. (2000). “Examining the doctorate: institutional policy and the PhD examination process in Britain”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 167-180.
43. Trafford, V. (2003). “Questions in doctoral vivas: views from the inside” Quality assurance in Education, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 113-121.
44. University of South Africa. (2008). Policy for master’s and doctoral degrees. Pretoria: Unisa.
45. Vernon, T. M. (2006). Generational modelling: the art of supervising electrical engineering postgraduates. AARE 2005 International education research conference. UWS Parramatta: http://trove.nla.gov.au/version/166827174 [Accessed 13.5.2018].
46. Wallace, S. (2003). “Figuratively speaking: six accounts of the PhD viva”, Qualitative Assurance in Education, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 99-107.
47. Watts, J.H. (2008). “Challenges of supervising part-time PhD students: Towards student centred practice”, Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 369- 373.