Creating Postgraduate Collaborations › Forums › CPC Supervision Development Course 2 › Module 4 › Module 4, Session 4: Food for thought
-
AuthorPosts
-
Work through the PowerPoint from the University of Antwerp on PhD assessment and reflect on the questions raised in chapter 5 ‘Food for thought’.
Remember to click “subscribe” (top right corner) to receive responses to your comments via email.
Several papers show that there is no set of well-defined, universal evaluation criteria for assessing a PhD thesis, but that certain topics keep recurring therefore the evaluation criteria in my opinion that is important should be inclusive in terms of the composition of the jury. That is the supervisors of the PhD student, at least two representative members of the faculty where the PhD is situated and who are PhD holder, one external senior PhD examiners with relevant knowledge of the research area, and the chair at the school of post graduate studies. This is inclusive because both internal and external are coopted. In my opinion publications should be part of (and guarantee) a quality PhD thesis because if the findings are accepted in credible publishing journals and the findings are shared through the publication then this knowledge can reach many and that is the essence of a scholar. To increase increase/guarantee the reliability of the evaluation of PhD theses is by being ethical and objective with the verdict depending on the issues deliberated of course guided by a marking scheme. Divergent assessments by different evaluators at times may not work well on the verdict but it is important to understand that knowledge differs so research also differs and this brings in the Horizontal and the hierarchical dimensions. The bottom line is that knowledge gap must clearly be seen to have been generated or filled
The paper on cognitive change shows that a PhD track involves a learning path for both the student and the supervisor (where their knowledge structures can take different paths, e.g. grow towards each other or not) and that supervisors and students look at a PhD differently: This implications can make the work delay and drug if clear harmonization is not taken care of. The supervisor should be a mentor and a coach in this case when the views are diverge.My first impression of the PhD assessment at Antwerp is that it is rigorous, intensive and ascertains the quality of a PhD graduate. I believe the separate assessment of research and doctoral education acknowledges that a PhD graduate has other skills that they need to develop to be complete and rounded, outside of their research for the PhD. Many novice researchers find the research environment intimidating and unnerving but with ample grounding in how one can adapt to the research environment, a researcher is given much confidence. I also find some of the elements that are focused on in the Doctoral study Program to be essential in ensuring that the PhD candidate will be able to “Manage their own research,” develop “research skills and techniques,” become “effective” at a personal level, develop “communication skills,” grow some “networks and teams” and generally be able to manage their careers. However, on the other hand, one might be of the view that these could NOT have been made mandatory as many of the PhD candidates come with those skills already and it becomes a waste of their time to focus on those areas again when they could be advancing in other “new” areas.
The (bi)yearly evaluation and the final evaluation present critical checks and balances as one progresses with their research. The yearly evaluation gives impetus to academic progress – it also ensures that the candidate as well as the university are not “shocked” with the candidate’s final result as this might be telling in the constant assessments/ evaluations. A candidate is equally presented with opportunities to correct any mistakes as they progress.
I have no issues with the IPC and jury as I believe they are critical part of the quality assurance process. Of course, neutrality should stem from the “oath” of office taken by the said jury – it is ethical to be neutral when you assess students’ work! This is expected of any academic who handles students’ work. The pre-defense should adequately prepare the candidate for the public defense, making it really a critical part of the examination process.
At my university, the training of the candidate in different areas is part of the supervision process. The supervisor ensures that s/he produces a well rounded student by introducing the candidate to the academic community through academic paper writing and conference presentations. While this is NOT as formal as at UAntwerp, it still yields the same result of a candidate who is well-rounded and confident as a scholar. The examination process is done externally followed by a viva-voce or oral defense.
My take on the Doctoral programme at the University of Antwerp is that it is meticulous and exhaustive and is likely to ensure that high standards are maintained by both staff and students. The assessment of resesearch and doctoral education done separately could be pertinent because whileresearch skills improve doctorate students ability to develop hypotheses and test theories and even amend these assumptions depending on the data collected, doctoral education on hand may assess other qualities that the students may have such as communication techniques, team work and other comptencies.
Bi yearly evaluation is important because it enables the faculty keep track on the students’ progress. It may also give insights on the challenges that students are facing and interventions that may be required. Yearly evaluation I believe ensures that the students are keeping up with the set milestones by the university such that studies dont drag on for too long.
I believe that the composition of the IPC and the Jury at Antwerp has been tried and tested and that at all times in maintains a balance that ensures that a doctoral student is treated justly and professionally at all times. This is because it is composed of the students supervisors, senior members of academic stuff and external members as well
I would recommend a pre defence session at all times because the student gets a chance to present their work before faculty members who are able to give criticisms and valuable inputs which can help to improve the quality of their work before the final public defence.
When a student qualifies to join doctoral studies at my university, they begin with course work in their discipline for an academic year. When they are done then they are assigned supervisors who help them develop their concept papers help them navigate through the processes required for them to be successful researchers. They may also be mentored by introducing them to relevant personalities in their areas of research, conferences and seminars. The examination of the thesis is done by a board of examiners nominated by the school of graduate studies which includes internal examiners who did not participate in the development of the thesis, and external examiner and representatives form various departments in the university involved in postgraduate studies
The students at my university are always required to write progress reports as well. the
approach by Antwerp is rigorous however our approach works and only needs to be improved on especially where the students progress is monitored more closely.I am yet to be an examiner, which is something I am nervous about. In South Africa, well at least at Rhodes University, we do not do vivas or defence examinations. We send our student’s thesis to 3 examiners, 2 national, and 1 international, and they comment and give feedback. Having been part of this process of being examined, I know the anxiety that comes with waiting to get feedback. So my reflection here is only from that perspective. I particularly like this model, even though I have not experienced any other model. I think it gives the students time to breathe a bit while they are waiting for feedback. The challenge only comes in when examiners take longer to give feedback, then it leaves the student feeling really anxious and in a state of limbo. in terms of the feedback, I think it is usually well balanced and rigorous because you get to hear from 3 ‘experts’ and they all offer interesting and insightful takes on your research. But to have this positive experience, one really needs to choose examiners wisely as noted in the presentation. FOr me, I am not sure where to find examiners if say I am newly employed. I know people say you make connections at conferences and seminars, but what if you have not had time to make such connections, where does one find suitable examiners for their students? I almost wish there was some kind of working document we can develop with a list of tried and tested examiners to serve as a reference or a starting point for novice supervisors like myself.
The way the PhD assessment is done in Antwerp is objective because the Doctoral education and research are assessed separately. In my opinion the Doctoral education will lead to quality research. Because a student needs the education knowledge in order to apply it relevantly in research. The combination of (bi)yearly evaluation and final evaluation is to enable the progress of the final document to be quality work and to keep the student on check by yearly evaluation. The composition of the IPC and jury is inclusive because it captures the internal and external views in the evaluation of the thesis. Neutrality of the jury can be guaranteed by the faculty when the diverging views do not confuse the student from the line of thought and derail the student hence making the student even to start a fresh. It also depends largely on the way the student convinces the panelist on the new knowledge generated. There is added value in my opinion on pre-defense and the public defense because it makes the student have a feel on what to expect in the final defense. There might be clamoring mistakes that the student and the supervisors may have not seen that can be cleaned at the pre -defense. Where I work is more less like the University of Antwerp
PhD program is really exhaustive. This is because most students are already parents and have to play the roles of parents and students at the same time. Financial stress and other factors set in and this can affect the program. Therefore mid-year review of the work done by students can be very helpful to keep the students on their toes and supervisor in a clear position on the progress of the student.
The PhD assessment is rigorous and elaborate which in may opinion not only builds confidence in the system and structures but also improves the quality of outcomes.
The added value of assessing the research and doctoral education separately is that its helps in safe guarding the process and ensure that the programme gets the deserved rigor.
The combination of (bi)yearly evaluation and final evaluation helps keep track of the progress and iron out unclear issues while the final evaluation ascertains whether he research is delivered as planned
The neutrality of the jury can be guaranteed by the faculty by presenting members who are not directly involved on the project and may omitting the details of the students during the examination process safe for the oral examination level.
Pre-defence and the public defence in my opinion are important because they help build the students confidence in presentation and also in the work as the feedback received helps improve the research. / Do you see any the added value of working with a pre-defence?
…
How is it done at your university?
The research proposal the is presented at the three levels; departmental postgraduate committee, school/faculty postgraduate committee and finally the Graduate school post graduate committee.
once the approval is received from graduate school the proposal then proceeds to the committee of ethical review who them issues approval to collect data.
The thesis is then presented at the departmental postgraduate committee and the school/Faculty postgraduate committee thereafter is presented to the school of graduate studies in preparation for final oral examination.
the departmental postgraduate committee the appoints a board of examiners consisting of:
1. One external Examiner
2. Two internal Examiners
3. Two school/Faculty representatives
4. the supervisors
Upon receipt of all the reports from the examiners then an oral examination is scheduled and the student presents to the board of examinerThe benefits of the different approaches is that they provide an array of ways that may improve other approaches and drawbacks of the different approaches is that so approaches may not apply in other circumstances.
The PhD examination structure for university of Antwerp is quite rigorous and strives to achieve high quality desertions. I like the pre-defense part where experts review the thesis critically. in addition, the committee comprises of non experts in the field under review which enables the thesis to be clear even to a layman who has no background in the area of study. The inclusion of public defense makes it open for members of the public to participate in an academic process.
In most Kenyan universities,there is usually one public defense with the candidate being questioned by both experts and non experts and later on, the verdict would be to accept the thesis with minor corrections, accept with major correction for reject.The practices of PhD assessment in Antwerp is highly similar to what goes on at my institution in kenya. I want to believe that our PhD asssesment is rigorous
however i am not aware if there is a specific period set aside to determine whether a student can go ahead and defend their thesis after reports from the examiners have been handed in. It would be great to enlighten us of what informs the decision on whether the student should be allowed to defend their thesis or not given that a written thesis does not measure all the possible graduates’ attributes.Pre-defences when conducted approriately by a balanced pannel can add alot of value and improve students’ reserch however i wish we could assess our students with the same kind of rigor that we use during the final defence during pre-defence.
Neutrality of the jury can be guaranteed by having atleast one external examiner, have atleast one board member appointed from outside the students’ departments and finally, the defence should be chaired by a netral member of the academic staff.
It appears that there are models/many ways of accomplishing the same goal but in all of them there is drawn similarity. The examination process aims to check the suitability of the candidate for doctoral studies. In some universities the candidate is required to write an essay of given limited words justifying his/her intention to enroll.
The PhD Supervision and format does not vary sharply from the Kenyan context although there is a maximum of two supervision. The four supervisors allocated at Antwerp University is permissible where there is enough manpower. Overall, it ensures quality checks.
The entire process from admission to composition of the doctoral jury to submission of the thesis guarantees quality and ensures there is no unfair treatment of the candidates.
Assessing the research and doctoral education separately has the merit of eliminating subjectivity.
To ensure neutrality supervisors should only be observers. Any jury member with interest in the candidate should renounce him/herself from the jury.
I consider pre-defence as a current issue in our country. It critically helps the candidate to see himself in the mirror before he/she steps out to defend their work. It helps to minimize the corrections at the final defence apart from building the confidence of the candidate.
AT my local university, a notice of defense is given and supervisors are asked to clear students whose work is ready.
Pre-defense is held at the school level. The composition of the jury is drawn from members of the school. However, at Graduate level the panel consists of the SGS Chairman, two external examiners, two internal examiners, Deans, and heads of departments. WE have members drawn from the academia who constitute the “Public” whose role is passive.The world is dynamic and so is the academia. What works for you today may not be relevant to us and may not work for you tomorrow. The best approach is to adopt what is appropriate as per the prevailing circumstances. IT has worked!
Publications should be part of the evaluation. They help to introduce young scholars to the academia.
Knowledge divergence between the supervisor and student should be taken positively. Ultimately, there should be convergence. It should help the supervisor to assess what the student brings to the learning process. It can only impact negatively on the doctoral evaluation process if one party fails to see the angle of the other.
The University of Antwerp PhD assessment is complete, rigorous and extensive since the PhD research and PhD professionalism are assessed. This approach ensures that doctoral education is not forgotten as in the case of evaluating only the research.
The use of yearly evaluation helps in ensuring that the students are on track. The completion rate is also monitored by ensuring that the lagging students are helped while emerging problems are tackled early.
IPC and Jury composition is ok. Its neutrality can be ensured by assessing the proposed juries before being appointed as jury members.
Predefence is important since it prepares the PhD student and at the same time helps the supervisors gauge if the student is ready for oral defence or not.
The PhD assessment in my university follows the same format only that there is no PhD professional assessment.
As mentioned by many papers, there are no standards for PhD assessments but there is room for continuous improvements. In the area of Jury selection ensure that there is no partiality. Publications can also be included as part of PhD assessment to disseminate student work while at the same time welcoming the student to the academic world. Progress reporting can be done once every four months, especially for full-time PhD students.
The path to attaining a PhD from the University of Antwerp is clear. The process is also well marked out with action points at each stage. This is indicative of a process that is thorough and rigorous. There is great value in assessing the research and doctoral education separately. This not only adds rigor to the process but also makes the assessment wholesome. The (bi)annual evaluation is very key to ensuring completion of the PhD projects. Many students who fall off along the way are likely to do so because the University and Supervisors do not check on them from time time to time. The composition of the IPC and Jury is very Critical. As it happens in University of Antwerp, its clear the PhD moves from being an individual project to a public project which should be the case world over. A pre-defence works for the student most of the time. It is during the pre-defence that the student gets to be aware of what to expect in the final VIVA. The student therefore gets to gain confidence while learning about items that they and the supervisors might have left out in the writing of the thesis.
In my university, a PhD student is required to write to the graduate school a notice of intent to submit their final thesis. This notice is required to be received at the graduate school at least a month before the submission date.
Before writing to the graduate school the intent to submit the thesis, students are required to have presented their thesis twice at the school level. These are called pre-submission defences. The school postgraduate faculty give comments to the doctoral candidates thesis based on the presentation by the student and the thesis. The student therefore in writing to the graduate school of their intent to submit the final thesis, gives evidence in the form of written minutes of the final pre-submission defence among other requirements. Upon receiving the notice of intent, the graduate school writes to the school where the doctoral candidate is affiliated asking for the formation of a board of examiners. The board of examiners is constituted of 1 external examiner (from outside the university and who is an expert in the thematic area of the thesis), 2 internal examiners (from the department or school where the student is affiliated), 2 school representatives (1from the affiliated school and one from another school within the university), the dean of the school (who is the senior most member of faculty in the school in most cases), the dean of the graduate school (to chair and convene the defence), and the secretariat who mostly is the school administrator (their role is to record the proceedings of the defence). Members of the public are also invited although they rarely attend.I believe that the process at the University of Antwerp is much better especially in the composition of the Jury . I would recommend this everywhere else.
What needs to be check everywhere is the nature of publications before submission of final thesis. Even though its a requirement to publish before submission, rarely do supervisors and even the graduate school check where the student publishes. This therefore leads to many students publishing in predatory journals that do not consider quality, just the turnaround time and money paid for publication.Even though there is not a uniform, well defined criteria for PhD assessment, there is great resemblance of the process in many universities world over. The differences arise in the composition of the board of examiners particularly on the numbers and where they are drawn from.
Publications should in deed be part of the PhD assessment world over. Its after publication in a refereed journal that the PhD becomes what it should be. A PhD should solve a problem, and this solution should be shared as a form of published information article.
To guarantee reliability in the evaluation of a PhD, I believe the assessment panel should comprise of members of faculty drawn from outside the university who should be experts in the subject matter. Where possible, members of the panel should be the highly experienced researchers in the subject area globally. This will end the duplication of information and research as it has happened all the years where certain thesis are so similar to each other apart from say where the study was conducted.
In deed both the supervisor and the student learn in the process of the PhD project. To ensure validity of the outcome (the PhD thesis), the panel composed as suggested above would really help.It is interesting to know that the faculty ensure the neutrality of the jury. It is also interesting that Rhodes do not have a defense process and only an examination process. In my case, I had five examiners on my jury and the defense went on for about 2 hrs. I do agree with the paper that a PhD means something different to the supervisor and the student. In fact, I am beginning to believe that it also means something different depending on whether you are non-tenured supervisor or a tenured one.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.