Sunteți pe pagina 1din 18

LUOVA /Scientist Survival Skills

Reviewing a Masters or PhD thesis


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

S-ar putea să vă placă și