INFUSING EXTERNAL EXAMINERS’ REPORTS IN OPEN AND DISTANCE LEARNING POSTGRADUATE SUPERVISION
INFUSING EXTERNAL EXAMINERS’ REPORTS IN OPEN AND DISTANCE LEARNING POSTGRADUATE SUPERVISION
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.
___
- Butcher, J. & Sieminski, S. (2006). “The challenge of a distance learning
professional doctorate in education”, Open Learning, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 59-69.
- 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.
- Carter, S. (2008). “Examining the doctoral thesis: a discussion”, Innovation in
Education and Teaching International, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 365-374.
- Cercone, K. (2008). “Characteristics of adult learners with implications for online
learning design”, AACE Journal, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.137-159.
- 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.
- 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.
- Delamont, S. Parry, O. & Atkinson, P. (2004). “Supervising the doctorate”.
London: Open University Press.
- Denicolo, P. (2003). “Assessing the PhD: a constructive view of criteria”, Quality
Assurance in Education, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 84-91.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Joyner, R.W. (2003). “The selection for external examiners for research degrees”,
Quality assurance in Education, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 122-126.
- 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.
- 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].
- 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.
- Lee, N. (2010). “Preparing for thesis and viva: some practicalities”, Nurse
Researcher, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 52-59.
- Lessing, A.C. (2009). “The examination of research dissertations and theses”.
Acta Academica, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 255-272.
- 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]
- Lovitts, B.E. (2005). “How to grade a dissertation”, Academe, Vol. 91, No. 6, pp.
18-23.
- 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.
- 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.
- Malone, S. (2014). “Characteristics of adult learners”, Training and Development,
Vol. 41, No. 6, pp 10-13.
- Merriam, S.B., & Bierema, L.L. (2014). “Adult Learning: Linking theory and
practice”. Jossey Bass. San Francisco.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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].
- Petersen, E.B. (2007). “Negotiating academicity: postgraduate research
supervision as category boundary work”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 32,
No. 4, pp. 475-487.
- 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.
- 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.
- Russell, S.S. (2006). “An overview of adult-learning processes”, Urologic
Nursing, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 349-52.
- 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.
- 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].
- 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.
- Shenton, A.K. (2004). “Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative
research projects”, Education for Information, Vol. 22, pp. 63-75.
- Sweeny, B. (2008). Principles of Adult Learning. Wheaton, IL. Best Practice
Resources, Inc.
- 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.
- 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.
- Trafford, V. (2003). “Questions in doctoral vivas: views from the inside” Quality
assurance in Education, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 113-121.
- University of South Africa. (2008). Policy for master’s and doctoral degrees.
Pretoria: Unisa.
- 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].
- Wallace, S. (2003). “Figuratively speaking: six accounts of the PhD viva”,
Qualitative Assurance in Education, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 99-107.
- 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.