3-What Makes a Good Thesis (Part 1)

31/07/2015

1

WHAT MAKES A GOOD THESIS

(PART 1)

WHAT MAKES A GOOD THESIS

(PART 1)

Mohd Salleh Abu@UTMMohd Salleh Abu@UTM

THE PRE-AMBERTHE PRE-AMBER

Mohd Salleh Abu@UTMMohd Salleh Abu@UTM

31/07/2015

2

Examining a PhD Thesis -What Do Examiners Expect?

Originality of work Contribution to the body of knowledgeThe candidate’s credibility to conduct of scientific workDemonstration of candidate’s ability to think critically based on meta-information

the originality, values and contribution of workwell formulated research problemssufficient of critically reviewed (relevant) literaturerigorous and appropriate underlying theoretical frameworkwell-explained and well-justified research methodologysystematic and established data collection

* these should be associated with or resulted by the candidate’s own ability to think critically

Examining a PhD Thesis -What Do Examiners Look For?

rigorous data analysis and hard findingsscholarly discussion with coherent argumentsauthentic and latest referencesorganised and easy to follow presentations of contents

31/07/2015

3

EXAMINING PhD THESES: WHAT DO I LOOK FOR

EXAMINING PhD THESES: WHAT DO I LOOK FOR

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND OF

PROBLEMS

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND OF

PROBLEMS

31/07/2015

4

WHAT ARE EXPECTEDIntroduction & Background of Problems

A display off candidate’s ability to think critically and organise ideas into coherent arguments to highlight the originality and contribution of work to the body of knowledge in a straight forward manner, viz.,

how the he/she became interested in the subjectwhat made him/her consider it important enough to spend substantial part of his/her life investigating itwhat noble values would it carrywhat outcomes were expected from it

Gap to be filled Inadequacies to be

addressed Boundary of knowledge

to be extended

Introduction & Background of Problems

A critical, rigorous and profound analysis of most relevant, current issues (and perhaps pressing) in the specific area of study.

Gap to be filled Inadequacies to be

addressed Boundary of knowledge

to be extended

31/07/2015

5

Introduction & Background of Problems

These sections should provide a ‘good guess’ about the essentials of the thesis to the examiner:

research objectives and research problems to be addressedtheoretical framework to be adoptedresearch methodologyexpected findingsoriginality, values and contribution of the study

Introduction & Background of Problems

THE NOTICEABLE WEAKNESSESFailure to establish the real value and merit of research, most probably due to weaknesses to formulate research problems. In particular, the candidates fail to:

• funnel in into specific issues to be addressed• exemplify the merit of the issues raised• establish the critical needs to address the issues raised• provide scholarly arguments that form a basis to

formulate and corroborate the issues raised

31/07/2015

6

11

Indicators showing lack of consolidated knowledge in the area of study

Clear indicators of lacking sense of detailing and scholarly accountability

Introduction & Background of Problems

ANNOTATED ERRORS AND DEFICIENCIES

ANNOTATED ERRORS AND DEFICIENCIES

31/07/2015

7

PhD_01 PhD_02 PhD_03 PhD_04

Source of Data

Background of Problems + Problem Statement (PhD_03)

2.2 The Formulation of Research Problems (1.2 Background of Problem + 1.3 Problem Statement):a. A substantial number of research on Cognitive Engagement (CE) are cited but the ‘exact

problems to be addressed’ are not discussed critically (refer to 1.2.1 p4 – p7). The respective research problems are therefore ill-formulated.

b. It is not clear if the six points about CSCL stated in para 2 (p10) actually form an essential part of the research problems.

c. What actually went wrong or deficiencies with the existing Performance Predictive Model (PPM) with respect to CE?

d. This section must indicate the following: • In what way is your proposed study is important (viewed from the online learning

complexity)? What are important but ‘remained unsolved’?• What values would this research carry?• What would be the distinctive features of research?

e. This section should also ‘guide and influence’ your readers to focus on your research problems, research objectives and methodology adopted.

Gap to be filled Inadequacies to

be addressed Boundary of

knowledge to be extended

31/07/2015

8

Background of Problems (PhD_02)

The research problems are highlighted but not concisely summarized. Looking at the whole research, the following essential research problems (at least) must be addressed and critically reviewed (not in a particular order):

a. What’s wrong with the students’ ‘procedural learning habit’ (especially with respect to the learning of quadratic functions and alike) in comparison with conceptual learning that you wish to promote? (para 1 p30)

b. What are the advantages of ‘visualisers’ (that you capitalized in the making of QFtica)? (p30 –31)c. What are lacking with the existing microworld environment? What are deficiencies associated with

the direct use of Mathematica (p31)?d. You have claimed that there are effective software associated with various forms of mathematical

representations; numerical, symbolic and graphical (p32 – 33). If so, why do you need to invent QFtica?

e. Why do you want to measure the linguistic variables (i.e. symbolic procedure and the extent of assistances to be rendered by teachers)? So far, what are the significant difficulties and deficiencies encountered by researchers that make your new way of measuring linguistic variables (i.e. using new approach of ‘fuzzy conjoints’) worthwhile (p32 – 33)?

Gap to be filled Inadequacies to

be addressed Boundary of

knowledge to be extended

Pengenalan, Latar Belakang Masalah (LBM) (PhD_01)

a. LBM dan PM berkaitan dengan keperluan mengwujudkan Ujian Literasi Pentaksiran (ULP) dapat menjelaskan merit kajian ini. Tetapi mengapa LBM dan PM berkaitan keperluan kajian mengenai norma dan profil Literasi Pentaksiran Guru (LPG) tidak disentuh langsung?

b. Status isu norma dan profil LPG adalah jauh melampaui batasnya sebagai hanya sebahagian daripada proses pengesahan ULP (rujuk ms 86, 107). Ianya memerlukan metodologi khusus serta berupaya menyumbang kepada body of knowledge dalam bidang pentaksiran.

c. Isu penentuan norma dan profil LPG juga amat penting dalam kajian ini sehingga anda menjadikannya sebagai salah satu objektif kajian (Objektif 2). Anda melakukan analisis data secara terperinci (ms 202 – 204) dan membincangkan hasil dapatan dalam Perkara 5.4 (ms 239 – 248). Rujuk komen (b1).

Gap to be filled Inadequacies to

be addressed Boundary of

knowledge to be extended

31/07/2015

9

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES & RESEARCH PROBLEMS

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES & RESEARCH PROBLEMS

Research Objectives & Research Problems

Well-formulated ROsbased on the facts/situations/ scenarios/ arguments presented in the Introduction & Background of Problemsare unique and poke the boundary of the existing knowledgeclearly stated and not ambiguous

based on the facts/situations/ scenarios/ arguments presented in the Introduction & Background of Problemsare unique and poke the boundary of the existing knowledgeclearly stated and not ambiguous

WHAT ARE EXPECTED

Gap to be filled Inadequacies to be

addressed Boundary of knowledge

to be extended

31/07/2015

10

Research Objectives & Research Problems

Well-formulated RPsamenable to researchwell specifiedin congruence with ROsethical factors and constraints are well considered(manageable in size - can be accomplished within the time frame and means)(expected difficulties - methodological, availability of data, administrative, logistics, cooperation, etc. are taken care off)(research cost is bearable)

Research Objectives & Research Problems

ANNOTATED ERRORS AND DEFICIENCIES

ANNOTATED ERRORS AND DEFICIENCIES

31/07/2015

11

Research Objectives & Research Problems

Objektif Kajian (PhD_04)

Objektif Kajian

i. Mengapa Objektif (i) perlu dicapai? Saya tidak nampak keperluannya berdasarkan Latar Belakang Masalah yang dinyatakan dan juga Kerangka Teori yang anda gunakan dalam kajian ini (Rajah 1.3).

ii. Objektif kajian (ii) – (iv) dinyatakan dengan jelas dan boleh dicapai berdasarkan remarks on Kerangka Teori (Perkara 2(ii)(b) di atas).

iii. Apa maksud Objektif (v)? Berdasarkan analisis dan dapatan yang dibincang dalam 4.10 (m.s 127 – 131), saya dapati Objektif (v) tidak berkaitan langsung dengan ‘kerangka perkaitan GK’ .

Research Objectives & Research Problems

Research Objectives (PhD_02)

Judging from the Research Title, Objectives, Literature Search, Research Methodology, The R&D, Data Analyses, Findings and Discussion (esp. Section 6.3), I strongly feel that the research STRENGTH, NOVELTY and ACCOMPLISHMENT lies on the following:

a. Designing a new way of measuring linguistic variables using fuzzy conjoint case study (Phase II).

b. Design and development of QFtica that assists the construction of conceptual learning in quadratics functions (Phase I and Phase III).

These are to be reflected in R2a – R2b as well as the Research Objectives.

31/07/2015

12

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK & CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK & CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Theoretical Framework

TF fits well with the facts/situations/ scenarios/ arguments presented in the Introduction & Background of Problems, ROs and RPs.

TF is authentic, undeniable and aptly applicable.

WHAT ARE EXPECTED

31/07/2015

13

Theoretical Framework

TF & CF are rigorous and profoundly justified

TF & CF withstands the ‘odds’ and ‘objections’

TF & CF are in congruence

Theoretical Framework

TF & CF come with appropriate diagrammatic representation (highly advisable).

31/07/2015

14

Theoretical Framework

ANNOTATED ERRORS AND DEFICIENCIES

ANNOTATED ERRORS AND DEFICIENCIES

Theoretical Framework

Kerangka Teori (PhD_04)

a. Untuk mengelakkan kekeliruan, saya cadangkan Seksyen 1.6 fokus kepada Kerangka Teori (KT) yang anda gunakan dalam kajian ini sahaja (most probably Rajah 1.3 m.s. 17). Rasional pemilihan ‘teori lama’ Model Hubbard (1988) sebagai KT perlu dijelaskan di sini. Maklumat lain berserta perbincangan dan hujah seperti Rajah 1.1 (m.s 14), Rajah 1.2 (m.s. 16) perlu dimuatkan dalam Bab 2.

b. KT (Rajah 1.3 m.s. 17) tidak menjelaskan ‘perkaitan’ antara:

• Komponen GK (FD & FI) dengan setiap komponen perisian pembelajaran yang dikaji (Kandungan, Strategi Pembelajaran dan Antara Muka).

• GK (FD & FI), komponen perisian pembelajaran yang dikaji (Kandungan, Strategi Pembelajaran dan Antara Muka) dan pencapaian pembelajaran.

• GK (FD & FI) dan persepsi pelajar.

31/07/2015

15

Theoretical Framework

Theoretical Framework (PhD_03)

You are combining several ‘models’ in the TF (1.6 p14 – p20):

a. What are the basis and rationale of such combination of models? Are they compatible? Is the combination authentic? Who adopted this kind of combination?

b. Why the 3PD Model (Sims & Jone, 2003) does not appear in the background of problem? Is it important with respect of your research?

c. How does the PPM play role in this TF? Why it is not explained in this section? A clear CF is required.

Theoretical Framework

Kerangka Teori (PhD_01)

c1. (c.f. Rajah 1.2 ms 17) Apa model yang anda gunakan untuk menentukan 5 Dimensi ULP?. McInntire & Lesli (2007) hanya menggariskan langkah yang anda perlu ambil dalam mereka bentuk ULP. Anda perlukan jelaskan Kerangka Konsep kajian ini.

c2. (c.f. Rajah 1.2 ms 17) Anda menjelaskan kerangka konsep (??) berkaitan proses menentukan kesahan dan kebolehpercayaan ULP. Apakah kerangka konsep yang anda gunakan dalam menentukan norma dan profil LPG?

31/07/2015

16

SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDYSIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

Scholarly yet creatively signify the following:

Will the findings advance knowledge?Will the research have noble value?Will the findings be of interest to others?Can the research be reproducible?

Significance of Study

WHAT ARE EXPECTED

31/07/2015

17

Significance of Study

ANNOTATED ERRORS AND DEFICIENCIES

ANNOTATED ERRORS AND DEFICIENCIES

Significance of Study

Significance of Study (PhD_01)

Kepentingan mengenai perlunya pembangunan ULP dijelaskan dengan baik. Tetapi kepentingan penghasilan norma dan profil LPG tidak disentuh langsung sedangkan ianya sebahagian objektif kajian anda.

31/07/2015

18

OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS

OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS

Operational Definitions

Terminologies and terms used in the thesis are:

well defined and operational for this researchfounded and non-ambiguousused consistently throughout

WHAT ARE EXPECTED

31/07/2015

19

Operational Definitions

ANNOTATED ERRORS AND DEFICIENCIES

ANNOTATED ERRORS AND DEFICIENCIES

Operational Definitions

Operational Definitions (PhD_02)

The operational definitions of QFtica and Persekitaran QFtica are vague. (p84? or p90 – 93 instead?). How does the term ‘symbolic manipulator’ (used repeatedly in Section 6.3.1.1) come into play?

Suggestions:1. Provide clearer operational definitions of QFtica and Persekitaran QFtica . Something like this

should offer very useful overview of the whole research:

QFtica is a Mathematica-based symbolic manipulator learning module that combines CAS features and manipulative learning activities comprising of two essential components, namely:

a. A paper-based text prepared using Mathematica document (called Studyguide)b. Exploration Environments Activies that can be evoked directly by the learners during the

Mathematica session (called Activitynotebook). (p91?)

Persekitaran QFtica is…..(QFtica + mathematically intelligent CAS + cross-platform exploratory learning + multiple representations… ??) (this prepares the readers to reach Rajah 6.3.3.4 p212 at the later stage!)

31/07/2015

20

LITERATURE REVIEW

LITERATURE REVIEW

Literature Review

31/07/2015

21

WHAT ARE EXPECTED

Signification of the candidate’s:mastery and acquisition of forefront and most recent knowledge in the particular discipline.full understanding of all related findings/issues/ situations in the specific area.ability to critically review (to digest, engross, making comparison and judgments, making coherent arguments, etc.) each of the findings/issues/ situations discussed.

Literature Review

Literature Survey

ability to present and organise ideas articulately

ability to make decisions that form a rigorous basis for the research (and the thesis).

non-narrative! Paraphrassing only at occasional and when necessary.

31/07/2015

22

ANNOTATED ERRORS AND DEFICIENCIES

ANNOTATED ERRORS AND DEFICIENCIES

Literature Review

Sorotan Penulisan (PhD_01)

a. Kritikal: Sorotan Penulisan anda meliputi 3 model pembangunan ujian (ms 84 – 87); Brown (1983), Cohen & Sweidlik (2002) dan McIntire & Leslie (2007). Anda perlu ulas secara kritikal kekuatan, kelemahan dan kesesuaian model-model ini sehingga anda akhirnya memilih McIntire & Leslie (2007) sebagai kerangka operasi kajian. Please strongly note that Pembangunan ULP forms the heart of your thesis!

b. Kritikal: Komen yang serupa untuk aspek Kesahan (ms 73 – 76)- mengapa model Oosterholf (1994) etc. yang anda pilih.

c. Kritikal: Komen yang serupa untuk aspek Kebolehpercayaan (ms 76 – 79) – mengapa Hanna & Dettmeur (2004), etc. yang anda pilih.

d. Kritikal: Mengapa tiada sorotan mengenai norm dan profil (LPG secara spesifik, dalam kajian ini) – meliputi model, proses dan prosedur untuk menghasilkan norma dan profil, kegunaan, dll?

Literature Review

31/07/2015

23

Literature Review (PhD_03)

By in large, this chapter cites a substantial number of findings within this specific area of research. However, I notice an obvious lacking of critical and scholastic review throughout this chapter.

Literature Review (PhD_04)

Well composed chapter in terms of coverage but requires consolidation on analytical reviews on each section discussed .

Literature Review

Literature Review (PhD_02)The following (which together form a basis for the methodology employed and data analyses to be performed) are very essential and MUST be included in the reviews:

a. The process of Aktiviti Penerokaan in learning mathematics (especially with respect to Mathematica, algebraic symbolic procedures and mathematical representations in the learning of quadratic functions and alike). This would provide a basis for the design of Activitynotebook (p93 – 100) as well as Studyguide (p100 – 101).

b. Survey pertaining to the linguistic variables (LV) investigated (especially symbolic procedures and the extent of assistances to be rendered by teachers) viewed from this research viewpoint. The difficulties and deficiencies associated with the conventional measurements of LV MUST be included.

c. Brief notes on the relevant applications of Fuzzy Set Theory (especially on Fuzzy Conjoints). The whole Section 4.2.1 is misplaced.

Literature Review