Preparing students for examination

Overview and research

Most experienced supervisors agree that talking to candidates right from the commencement of candidature regarding the examination process is a helpful learning experience. Explaining to candidates the process regarding selection of examiners, the submission and examination process, and how the results are handled and finalised can help allay candidate's fears. Such discussions are particularly helpful for international candidates as the Australian examination process is quite unusual in that it is one of the few Western higher education systems which has no specific requirement for an oral assessment of the candidate. (Most Australian universities offer examiners (and in some cases candidates) the option of an oral exam but its use is not common).

What the examiners will be looking for

Winter et al (2000) suggest that a doctorate ought to:

be a report of work which others would want to read
tell a compelling story articulately whilst preempting inevitable critiques
carry the reader into complex realms, and inform and educate him/her
be sufficiently speculative or original to command respectful peer attention (p.36).

Research suggests that experienced examiners in Australia expect that the thesis will pass and want it to pass. Rather than taking a summative approach to the examination process, they generally adopt a formative view where they aim to assist the candidate in improving their work. However, less encouraging for candidates, is the view expressed by most experienced examiners that they have a strong sense of the quality of the thesis by the second chapter, and often even earlier in their reading. Based on extensive interviews it appears that the questions that examiners have in mind as they read include:

How would they have tackled the problem set out in the abstract and the title?
What questions would they like answers to?
Do the conclusions follow on from the introduction?
How well does the candidate explain what they did?
Is the literature review substantial, relevant and up-to-date?
Is the research worthwhile?
Does it contribute something new, or provide a new way of looking at existing knowledge?
How much work has actually been done and how much of that has been published and where?
What is the intellectual depth and rigour of the thesis?
Is this actually 'research'-is there an argument?

Examiners report that they are 'turned off' by sloppy presentation (incorrect referencing, poorly labelled figures, inappropriate use of technical terms) particularly as this is considered an indication that the research itself, the data gathering and analysis, may also be sloppy.

Examiners also worry when there are unexplained inconsistencies between what the thesis sets out to do and what is actually done.

In summary,

A ‘good’ thesis has	A less than ideal thesis has
Critical analysis & argument	Too much detail with lack of analysis
Confidence & a rigorous, self-critical approach	Lack of confidence, energy & engagement by the candidate
A contribution to knowledge	Lack of argument and rigour
Originality, creativity & a degree of risk taking	Shoddy presentation (typos etc)
Comprehensiveness & scholarly approach	Lack of critique of own analysis/ sweeping generalisations based on opinion rather than analysis
Sound presentation & structure	Inadequate or poorly expressed methodology & scope
Sound methodology

The above text was based on the following research papers:

Bourke, S., Hattie, J., & Anderson, L. (2004). Predicting examiner recommendations on PhD theses. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(2),178-194.

Kiley, M. and Mullins, G. (2006) Opening the black box: How examiners assess your thesis. In C. Denholm and T. Evans (Eds) Doctorates downunder: Keys to successful doctoral study in Australia and New Zealand. ACER Press, Melbourne.

Kiley, M. and Mullins, G. (2004) Examining the examiners: How inexperienced examiners approach the assessment of research theses, International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 2 121-135.

Mullins, G. and Kiley, M. (2002) It's a PhD, not a Nobel prize: How experienced examiners assess theses, Studies in Higher Education, 27, 4.

Tinkler, P., & Jackson, C. (2000). Examining the Doctorate: institutional policy and the PhD examination process in Britain. Studies in Higher Education, 25(2), 167-180.

Winter, R., Griffiths, M. and Green, K. (2000) The 'academic' qualities of practice: What are the criteria for a practice-based PhD? Studies in Higher Education, 25, 1 25-37.

Ideas and tools

Finalising the thesis

In the last few months prior to submission many supervisors have found it useful to draw up a timeline with candidates regarding availability for a final read by the supervisory panel. Candidates often overlook supervisors' other commitments, or don't know of them, and are bitterly disappointed when the supervisor can not read the final drafts when they had assumed. It is also often a good idea to work out which member of the panel is the most appropriate to read early drafts (the big picture/structure person) and then the last reader (the attention to detail person).

Time management

Candidates generally underestimate the time to takes to:

make the final changes suggested by the supervisor or advisers
rigorously proof-read their final draft
format the final document
print, copy and bind (even a simple spiro-binding).

Working with candidates to draw up a realistic timeline can help avoid some of the stressful moments that often accompany this stage of candidature.

Overview of the dissertation

A tip that many candidates have found useful is to print off the introduction and conclusion of the dissertation and read them as one document to check for coherence and consistency. (Several examiners when interviewed commented that this what they do when they first read the thesis.)

Candidate emotions

Students, at this stage of candidature, may well experience Impostor Syndrome. Impostor Syndrome manifests as feelings of inadequacy and of being a 'fake' someone who will be unmasked for what they truly are, and in this case it is someone who will be found out not to be capable of undertaking a doctorate at all. (An entertaining description of Impostor Syndrome in a doctoral candidate is provided by Dr Valerie Young.)

Another emotion that some students experience at about this time, is feeling unsupported. This happens when they realise that for one brief moment they know more about a particular topic than possibly anyone else. These feelings can manifest in procrastinating behaviours or, as sometimes happens, disappointment in their supervisor's (apparent) lack of knowledge and ability: "When I started I thought he was a real expert but I've discovered he's really not that good at all!" (A comment to which most supervisors would shout 'Yippee!').

A third emotion, which is perhaps not so wide-spread, can result from family pressure. A case in point. A first generation Australian-born Greek candidate had been encouraged by a proud and loving family until he got close to the end of candidature when his father started commenting along the lines of 'I suppose once you're a doctor you'll think you are too good for this family.' This candidate delayed submitting by over a year rather than face the dilemma of hurting his father. Only with the help of an understanding uncle did he manage to finally submit.

Helping candidates through these emotions can certainly assist in timely, and confident, submissions and completions.

See PhD Comics 'Signs you're close to graduating' for an entertaining approach to finalising candidature.

ANU information

The examination process at the ANU

The main ANU policy relate to the examination of doctoral theses is Information for Candidates on the Submission and Examination of Theses

The ANU requires that a candidate inform Student Administration two months in advance of the anticipated submission date of the thesis. This allows time for examiners to be contacted and appointed. The Graduate Awards Rules of the ANU require that a thesis shall be an 'original written work' which 'incorporates an account of research done during an academic program and its result', and, where the 'research is on more than one topic, demonstrates the relation between the topics'. (pp. 8, 26). A thesis must be a connected piece of writing. The thesis may incorporate material which has been or will be published; copies or reprints of papers may not be included as part(s) of the thesis but may be included in an appendix. In the case of a thesis (or parts of it) based on research carried out jointly with others, the Rules require that there be included in the thesis a statement which clearly indicates the nature and extent of the candidate's contribution to the research (p. 26).

The ANU's policies are generally within the Doctoral Examination Guidelines developed by the Australian Council of Deans and Directors of Graduate.

The Australian Digital Theses web site provides candidates and supervisors with a searchable database of completed theses.

For College-specific information contact:

College of Engineering & Computer Science

College of Law

College of Arts and Social Sciences

College of Asia & the Pacific

College of Business & Economics

College of Medicine and Health Sciences

Alternatively, contact the College Associate Dean (HDR) for more general college information.