Tomas Roslin tomas.roslin@helsinki.fi [comments and complaints most welcome] LUOVA /Scientist Survival Skills Sample focus specifically Finnish Tomas Roslin Helsinki Prof. Pekka Pamilo Helsinki Prof. Pekka Niemel Turku Prof. Jari Kouki Joensuu Prof. Johanna Mappes Jyvskyl Prof. Mikko Mnkknen, Jyvskyl Dr. Jussi Alho Helsinki LUOVA /Scientist Survival Skills Academic theses: general opinnyte (proof / demonstration of learning) defines the intended thesis contents Fundamental objective: to measure the students skills and ability to conduct scientific work, including the level to which s/he has absorbed the scientific method way of thinking argumentation encompassing critical evaluation of earlier research recognition of weaknesses in own material and methods etc. LUOVA /Scientist Survival Skills Academic theses: general do check out the instructions given to the students before grading the result! format of theses varies surprisingly much you cannot grade a student by criteria that s/he was never aware of LUOVA /Scientist Survival Skills What is a good Masters thesis? Jyvskyl: Structure and length of thesis appropriate with respect to objectives identified and questions asked Coherence and clarity of presentation logical entity, intelligible to a person with a background training in the field Theoretical and conceptual context the student commands the relevant background, puts her/his work in a general context Command of the literature student familiar with key literature in the field (including older work), level of referencing appropriate Command of appropriate methods relevant methods chosen, presented in a repeatable format Discussion of results, inference Inference compatible with results obtained; own results critically evaluated Own initiative shows own interest under supervision; sought guidance when needed Finishing and language language clear, general format compatibel with instructions given LUOVA /Scientist Survival Skills Form or free form? Dr NN: a well-written free-form review is better than a well-written form-based review, but the form will at least remind you of the minimum things that you are supposed to evaluate Prof. NN: forms have three advantages: Show the student what aspects you will (and therefore s/he should) focus on Render the review process more transparent Promote unbiased treatment of students, in particular when the reviewers emanate from different backgrounds / cultures / countries LUOVA /Scientist Survival Skills Assessment form / our Faculty Name of writer (last and first name) Topic of the Masters thesis Introduction: Appropriateness of the methods and material for the topic: Results: Discussion of the results: Abstract: The thesis as a whole: Other comments: Proposal for a grade for the Masters thesis: Place and date Assessors signatures (please write your name also in block letters) LUOVA /Scientist Survival Skills My personal view Misguided to break the thesis apart into a series of pieces. What you are grading is the whole. Making sense of a bigger entity is THE key objective for the thesis. Contribute to that impression by writing a comprehensive, free-form report LUOVA /Scientist Survival Skills MSc: Level and length Finnish MSc projects tend to stretch out of all proportions Do not reward students for being over-ambitious, exceeding requirements Marks awarded = signals of what we expect from the students top grades given only to students really blowing the limits = shooting ourselves in the foot Defining a suitable project, solving it within the time frame allotted = key skill for student (and supervisor) Should be used as a criterion for grading Extended MSc thesis called PhD LUOVA /Scientist Survival Skills Should we be grading the process? Major disagreement: Prof. NN: The reviewer of a thesis should only focus on the end result, not on the research group, the context etc Prof. NN: A good reviewer will also recognize the conditions under which the work was conducted. Some people get too little supervision, some too much. Prof. NN: In the end, we should ask how well the student has solved the task given to her/him. LUOVA /Scientist Survival Skills Repeated problems Reviews reflecting the belief that the work should fulfill the requirements of a scientific journal Reviews focusing on whether the results are scientifically novel and ground-breaking Reviews offering no or few justifications The student has invested major effort in the work: has the right to justified feedback Legal protection from arbitrary grading Reviews bristling with details, without any comprehensive evaluation of the work as a whole Reviews of the student, not her/his work Reviews focusing on whether the work fits into a given scientific discipline Brutal reviews tearing the work into pieces LUOVA /Scientist Survival Skills MSc reviews: be constructive First scientific essay written by the student Feedback given may determine his/her future choices Be constructive, do not try to show off The more junior the referee, the bigger his/her need to prove him/herself Sleep on your review, then double-check whether your tone was not a bit too sharp LUOVA /Scientist Survival Skills PhD theses criteria similar to MSc BUT scientific results of vital importance LUOVA /Scientist Survival Skills PhD thesis Helsinki BioSci instructions: The examiner expected to consider: The choice of the research topic and the formulation of the research question The significance of the research and its results within the field of research Originality demonstrated in the planning and implementation of the work The adequacy of the students own contribution The publishing profile of the publications The scope of the research and the adequacy of the material The quality and thoroughness of the work, the versatility of the methods used, the development of new methods The deduction of results from the material studied The presentation, consistency, style and language of the dissertation or thesis The command of the field of research, familiarity with the literature (performance in defending the dissertation at the public examination) Consider that a PhD should be completable in four years of full-time work primary assessment criteria: scientific significance of the results candidates independent contribution to the research NOT no. publications Pre-examining a PhD Your task: to evaluate whether the thesis is of sufficient quality to advance to the defense Special emphasis on unpublished (not yet peer- reviewed) chapters The Faculty does not want your detailed feedback, but a 1-2-pages abstract of the main pros (and cons) of the thesis Remember to end your report with a clearcut statement: On the basis of what is stated above I/we recommend that the permission for a public defense of the dissertation can be granted. any other ending may land the candidate in deeeeeeeep trouble Detailed suggestions better sent to the candidate (typos, alternative stats etc). LUOVA /Scientist Survival Skills PhD thesis: one way to write the report NN: Title The thesis of NN addresses an intriguing question: to what extent xx. In this context, the thesis constitutes a full-bodied scientific endeavour xx. Since xxx, it makes a strong/substantial contribution to the subject field. The thesis is built on XX chapters. In chapter 1, the candidate asks xx. S/he finds that yyy. In chapter 2, [etc.] Overall, the presentation xxx. The thesis is xxx structured, and the candidate shows a xxx command of relevant literature. A few aspects of the thesis do leave some scope for improvement. These issues primarily relate to xxx Overall, my comments outlined above do not call for major changes, and I recommend that the permission for a public defense of the dissertation is granted. Helsinki XX March 2011 Tomas Roslin LUOVA /Scientist Survival Skills A good review report is well justified is based on a thorough reading of the Facultys instructions and evaluation criteria goes well beyond the details; evaluates the context and the significance of the thesis for the development of the subject field is rather too long than too short is written in a constructive tone offers an unequivocal recommendation re: the acceptance the thesis is not prejudiced by the reviewers own research, but open to alternative approaches LUOVA /Scientist Survival Skills Forms and instructions BioSci, MSc and PhD forms and instructions in Finnish and English: http://www.helsinki.fi/bio/lomakkeet/index.html http://www.helsinki.fi/bio/faculty/forms/index.html BioSci, PhD: instructions and forms in Finnish: http://www.helsinki.fi/bio/tutkimus/jatkokoulutus/tarkastajien_ohjeet.html grading instructions in English: http://www.helsinki.fi/bio/faculty/research/phd_studies/grading.html Faculty of Agricultural and Forstry, MSc assessment matrix: http://www.helsinki.fi/af- faculty/studies/forms/assessment_matrix_masters_thesis.pdf