Problem Definition and Thesis Writing: Workshops for the Postgraduate Student
Author(s): Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt and Nick Knight
Source: Higher Education , 1986, Vol. 15, No. 1/2 (1986), pp. 89-103
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3446744
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Higher
Education
This content downloaded from
193.225.127.100 on Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:33:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Higher Education 15 (1986)89-103 89
? Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht - Printed
Problem definition and thesis writ
Workshops for the postgraduate st
ORTRUN ZUBER-SKERRITT & NICK KNIGHT
Griffith University, Brisbane 4111, Australia
Abstract. The purpose of this paper is to present some innovative solutions to
experienced by coursework postgraduate students. The paper focusses on two key
the definition of the research problem, and the planning and writing of the first dr
It is argued that one approach which can assist the student to overcome these
workshop; research skills can be developed through the practical guidance, group
sion and reflection which occur in the workshop context. The authors' experienc
postgraduate workshops at Griffith University are discussed, and student evaluati
shops presented.
One of the major problems which Honours or Masters-by-Cour
dents confront is the requirement that the research thesis (which m
tute 40-50% of total assessment) must be completed in a very re
od of time, normally one academic year for the full-time stu
academic years for the part-time student. This problem is freq
pounded by the fact that the Honours or Masters student has had n
experience of independent research or any formal tuition in te
methods of research. Educational research on postgraduate study
tended to concentrate on problems confronted by doctoral or
Research students. Such problems are not, of course, different in k
faced by the Honours or Masters-by-Coursework student; they are
centuated for these latter students by the imposition of severe tim
and their own inexperience. Both of these factors may contribute t
of such students to complete their course of study or to submit th
the prescribed date; at the very least, they may contribute to poor
performance. It therefore behoves those responsible for the superv
ition of these students to be aware of those phases of the research
likely to impede progress and to be able to identify and employ pr
techniques which can assist students through such obstacles.
In this paper we will argue that two phases of the research proce
to the progress and performance of the beginning researcher: the f
the definition, construction and articulation of the research proble
second occurs at the point at which the student approaches the wri
first draft of the thesis. We will then describe a procedure employ
come these problems faced by Honours and Masters-by-Coursew
This content downloaded from
193.225.127.100 on Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:33:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
90
in the School of Modern Asian Studies (M.A.S.) at Griffith University; this
procedure involved the use of workshops in which the students collectively
confronted these impediments to research. Their design, implementation and
evaluation will be described. We turn firstly, however, to a brief discussion of
general problems of thesis writing identified by educational research and by
postgraduate coursework students within M.A.S.
Problems identified in postgraduate thesis writing
One central problem of postgraduate research which has been identified is the
failure to complete the thesis within the required time. Statistics gathered by
several research bodies with interests in postgraduate research suggest that this
is a problem which spans disciplinary boundaries and indeed is common to
postgraduate research in both the social and natural sciences. The Science and
Engineering Research Council of Great Britain (SERC, 1983) published the
results of a survey which revealed that less than half of all full-time PhD candidates completed their theses within three years. Figures released for 1983 and
1984 indicate that this pattern has improved only marginally: overall four-year
completion rates for over 2,000 SERC-supported PhD candidates only rose
from 49.1 percent to 51 percent between 1983 and 1984 (Turney, 1985). Similar-
ly, the findings of the Social Science Research Council of Great Britain paint
an even gloomier picture: only about forty percent of PhD candidates on a Research Council award had submitted their theses within six years (SSRC, 1980:
28-29):
There are likely to be a number of reasons for this which might include stu-
dents tackling over-ambitious topics; insufficient training in research
methods and techniques and inadequate supervision. Some remedies under
consideration include increasing the number of studentships allocated as
linked awards (see SSRC Annual Report 1977/78); introduction of new
forms of research training which include substantial taught components in
the first year; closer monitoring of departments and students by SSRC.
The SERC (1983) suggests four main reasons why postgraduate students do
not complete their theses in the allotted time:
1. Students make a slow start, particularly in the area of problem formulation
and literature survey;
2. The perfectionism of students who are never satisfied with their work;
3. Distraction from the main focus of the research project; for example, by
reading texts unrelated to the topic;
This content downloaded from
193.225.127.100 on Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:33:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
91
4. Inadequate collection of data due to poor planning; for example, in the area
of note-taking, referencing, and so on.
Of this list, points 1 and 3 are related to the difficulty that many postgraduate
students have in clearly and quickly defining and articulating their research
problem, a factor which we have experienced at first hand with the Masters-byCoursework students in M.A.S.; for example, not a single dissertation was submitted by the 1982 group by the prescribed date. As suggested earlier, the rea-
sons for this poor submission rate are research inexperience and the tighter
time schedule imposed on coursework degrees. It is also interesting that the
SERC diagnosis does not mention the inhibition which many postgraduate
students feel when confronted by the daunting task of committing their research findings to paper. Our experience suggests that postgraduate students
and supervisors alike perceive dissertation writing as an awesome, and in some
cases insuperable, task; indeed, it can become such a daunting prospect that
some students are effectively immobilised, lose all self-confidence, and either
fail to submit, or do so well after the due submission date.
The SERC provides a "check list on good supervisory practice" which suggests the following procedures are necessary to ensure effective progress of the
research student. These include:
- Publication of a departmental document on good supervisory practice.
- Carefully matching supervisor and prospective student.
- Students be provided with a reading guide for the summer vacation prior
to commencement of research.
- The students' first-year report to be assessed by academics other than the
immediate supervisor.
- Regular meetings between student and supervisor.
- The student's record keeping should be checked to ensure it is systematic.
- A mock viva be held six to twelve months before submission of the thesis.
While these general guidelines represent a positive step towards improving
postgraduate supervision, they need to be adopted and worked out in more detail in practice by supervisors themselves; only in this way will they have an effect on students' progress.
Throughout the SERC document the focus remains on the role of individual
supervision. Similarly, Rudd (1975) and Ibrahim et al. (1980), in identifying
reasons for and solutions to student dissatisfaction with supervision, leave the
onus for improvement on the individual supervisor. In these sources, other
support systems such as workshops and small-group activities are not considered. However, recent practice-oriented educational research suggests that
skills associated with the supervision and prosecution of postgraduate research
This content downloaded from
193.225.127.100 on Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:33:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
92
can be developed effectively in the context of group discussions and activities;
such skills include formulating a research proposal, definition and justification of the research problem, critical analysis of texts, note-taking, concept
mapping, and bibliographical and referencing skills. These are all "nuts and
bolts" aspects of researching and writing of the postgraduate thesis.
Moses (1981) describes workshops conducted for supervisors at the Universi-
ty of Queensland on the role of the supervisor and functions of supervision.
Similar workshops were held by Moses at Griffith University and other Australian tertiary institutions. This workshop approach represents a first practi-
cal step towards solving the unclear perceptions which supervisors have of
their role, tasks and responsibilities. Moses (1984) sums up the results of this
series of workshops, and concludes by asserting the importance of tailoring su-
pervision to the needs of the individual postgraduate student:
The starting point for each individual student is different; thus the supervisory process must differ for different students. It is the outcome that counts
- the independent researcher.
Zuber-Skerritt and Rix (1984b) extend the approach adopted by Moses by
describing the use of workshops in which both supervisors and students partic-
ipated. In these workshops, problems associated with research and writing
were broached and discussed collectively; of particular importance was the in-
teraction established among students facing common problems, and among
supervisors, as well as the interaction between supervisors and students. The
evaluation of these workshops (by open-ended questionnaire and videorecorded discussion) revealed that, apart from achieving the goal of supporting
supervisors in practical tasks of developing students' research and writing
skills, the workshops catered for other, less tangible, student needs: the work-
shop sessions helped overcome the social and intellectual "isolation" or "loneliness" experienced by postgraduate students. These problems were identified
by Welsh (1979), and were found to be associated with a lack of confidence
and motivation, with the failure to complete the research thesis within the
specified time limit, and with a higher attrition rate.
After careful consideration of evaluative comments by supervisors and stu-
dents, we came to the following conclusions. Most problems of postgraduate
research and writing can be rectified by written guidelines and/or the guidance
of the supervisor. However, there are two critical phases in the research process
during which group support and interaction are more effective; the first is
when the student must define the research problem and provide a rationale for
its selection and the theoretical assumptions and methodological techniques to
be employed in its solution; the second is when the student commences writing
the first draft. These two phases of the research process may give rise to other
This content downloaded from
193.225.127.100 on Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:33:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
93
student problems; this will become clearer if we turn to a consideration of the
entire process of dissertation research and writing.
The process of dissertation research and writing
McEvedy (1984) differentiates four major stages in the process of report writing which can be applied with equal relevance to dissertation writing: analysis,
synthesis, evaluation, and presentation. Each stage consists of various steps.
These stages and steps are diagrammatically represented in Fig. 1, which is an
adaptation to dissertation writing of McEvedy's (1984: 5) flow-chart of the
process of report writing. The two problem phases in the research process
identified above are highlighted in Fig. 1; namely, the research proposal
(stage I, step 2), and writing the first draft (stage II, step 2).
Student feedback following the workshops held in M.A.S. suggests that
tackling these two problem phases in the research process can alleviate other
problems identified by SERC (1983), and referred to above. These include the
problem of students making a slow start (in terms of both defining the research
problem and carrying out the literature survey), the danger of being distracted
from the main line of inquiry, and the problem of inadequate collection of
data due to a lack of planning. Addressing the problem of writing the first
draft can also overcome the related problem of student perfectionism and con-
comitant tendency to postpone the writing process. Evidence which demonstrates the relationship between overcoming the difficulties inherent in the two
problem phases of research and these other related problem areas appears in
I ANALYSIS
II SYNTHESIS
1 Analyse the topic
Make a flowchart showing main
^L+* ~ *T?~ 1 Ideas, arguments, structure, etc.
* ____________;_______._
Write a brief proposal on:
2 Write the firt draft.
1. Your central question/problem
2 2. Its significance
3. Your proposed methodology
3
III EVALUATION
Survey reading and
other resources
r--------*-.......-
----------
;
1 Reflect, evaluate, get a perspec
Make notes and record
i on the dissertation.
4 bibliographical Information
on catalogue cards
2 I Review, rewrite.
5 Refine the proposal
IV PRESENTATION
___.__
stage
...
......
....
,
_
1 Compile a bibliography.
--- step
* Key
problem area
2 Meet presentational requirements i
(format. typing).
.......... _________ __
Fig. 1. The process of dissertation research and writing (adapted from McEvedy, 1984).
This content downloaded from
193.225.127.100 on Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:33:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
94
two video programmes which portray and evaluate the workshop approach
employed in M.A.S. (Zuber-Skerritt and Rix, 1984a; Zuber-Skerrit and Knight,
1984).1
Having established the importance of tackling the two problem phases in the
research process, we turn now to a more detailed explanation of the workshop
technique designed to overcome these specific problems.
Workshop I: Defining the research problem
Educational research and our own experience in M.A.S. suggest that it is extremely important for the beginning researcher to define the research problem
at a very early stage in the research process. Defining a research problem is often found to be a most difficult and frustrating task. The reason for this lies
primarily in the fact that undergraduate students are by and large not compelled to define the problems they work on; such problems are presented to
them by lecturers, and the notion that defining and articulating a problem is
a demanding intellectual process in its own right is often poorly developed
amongst undergraduate students. Yet, it is a crucial preliminary step in the re-
search process, and one which the postgraduate student, recently emerged
from the security of undergraduate life where problems appear to exist selfevidently, must confront and overcome. If it is not, and the research proposal
remains vague and ill-defined, the student's subsequent activities of researching and note-taking will lack focus, be more time-consuming than is necessary,
and largely ineffective (cf. Fig. 1: stage I, steps 2-3). As a result, the student's
entire research project may be jeopardised; excessive time may be spent reading
material of marginal relevance and taking extensive notes whose purpose is not
clear. If this occurs, the student may only be able to complete the thesis by giv-
ing insufficient attention to other steps or stages in the complete process of
research (e.g. stage II, step 1, or stage III, step 2), thus prejudicing the quality
of the final product, or in severe cases, leading to the inability of the student
to submit the thesis on time or at all.
How can postgraduate students be helped to develop the skills necessary for
defining the research problem and so avoid the difficulties outlined above? Ad-
vice from supervisors and written guidelines are an obvious response to the
problem. However, our experience suggests that the use of workshops can complement and in some cases more successfully substitute for these conventional
approaches. In the context of workshop discussions, general guidelines and
principles on problem definition can emerge apparently spontaneously, generated through a process of collective reflection on the part of the students themselves. Moreover, a major benefit of the workshop approach is that such prin-
ciples frequently develop from concentration on the research topics of
This content downloaded from
193.225.127.100 on Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:33:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
95
individual students; there is thus a direct linkage established between the students' concrete research interests and the more general principles which might
assist further refinement of the research problem. This reinforces the notion,
already established by educational research, that learning by discovery and experience can be more effective than passive learning in which the student mere-
ly responds to an external source of information (Bruner, 1975; Boud, 1985;
Northedge, 1975).
The experience of the Masters-by-Coursework students in M.A.S. is instructive. Students were provided with written guidelines and advice from supervi-
sors, and this was followed up by a workshop on defining the research problem; and it was only with the workshop that many students realised the
importance of clear problem definition or that they still had no clear idea of
their research problem. The sequence ran as follows. Students submitted their
research topic for approval in October 1983; these were discussed with their supervisors, as is usually the case. After a meeting of all supervisors, it was decided that supervisors meet individually with their students before the summer vacation to clarify the expectations which each had of the other, to set tasks and
directions for work over the vacation, and to refer students to the set text on
thesis writing (Anderson et al., 1970). In March 1984, students were asked to
re-read the relevant chapters of this text which deal with planning a research
project, in preparation for the workshop. The text stresses the importance of
clear definition of the research problem (Anderson et al., 1970: 15):
It is the ability to detect problems that the postgraduate student must develop, for every thesis or dissertation should set out to shed light on the solu-
tion to a particular problem. In fact, the first question examiners usually
consider when marking a thesis is: Does it make a contribution to knowledge in this field? Phrased another way this question becomes: Was there
a problem to be investigated and did the thesis attempt to solve this problem?
Students had thus received advice from supervisors and written guidelines contained in a set text. However, it became apparent from the small-group discussion in the first workshop that most students were still unable to define their
central research problem with any clarity. It was only as the workshop proceed-
ed, and with subsequent student reflection on it, that students moved to a
clearer understanding of their research problem.
Prior to the workshop each student was asked to think about and respond
to the following series of questions:
1. What is your central question or problem?
2. Why is this problem important and worthy of study?
3. How will you go about it (research methods and underlying assumptions)?
This content downloaded from
193.225.127.100 on Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:33:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
96
During the workshop students and supervisors were divided into three small
groups according to subject areas. Students were asked to explain their
responses to the three questions given above. A common initial response was
that the students could not define the central research problem as insufficient
reading had been undertaken; inherent in this response is the assumption that
a research problem will emerge virtually spontaneously from extensive reading,
an assumption which is associated with the problems of unfocussed reading,
undisciplined note-taking, and general time-wasting referred to earlier. In the
workshop context, however, students and supervisors in each small group persisted in questioning and probing the student in a constructive and supportive
manner seeking an articulation of the central research problem. Through this
intensive interaction with fellow-students and supervisors, individual students
frequently discovered that they could describe their research problem; or, that
there was a growing awareness of the need to refine broad and unmanageable
topics to the point at which specific research questions could be posed.
The same workshop was conducted with Honours students in 1984 and
1985. As with the Masters-by-Coursework workshop, students were subjected
to intensive interaction in a supportive small-group context, and forced to confront the issue of defining the research problem. Student feedback again reinforced the view that the workshop could be a positive medium for facilitating
resolution of this key difficulty in the general research project.
It is also instructive that students themselves realised just how much time
this workshop could save them. The following students' comments are taken
from the video-recorded evaluative discussion (Zuber-Skerritt and Rix, 1984):
- When reading a book I now keep thinking: why am I reading this? How
does it relate to my central question?
- I used to take a lot of notes, but now I focus my reading more and end up
with fewer note cards, but these notes are right to the point, and I can actu-
ally use them for my dissertation...
Students were also appreciative of the opportunity to meet and discuss their
work with other students, and to hear advice and perspectives from supervisors
other than their own. This video programme demonstrates that the value of
this workshop lies in group support and interaction; the individual student no
longer feels isolated and inadequate to the task of problem definition, for it
becomes clear that other students are confronting exactly the same difficulties.
Student confidence is boosted; and through a process of mutual support and
a sharing of experiences, the student can grapple more resolutely with this first
major hurdle in the research process.
This content downloaded from
193.225.127.100 on Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:33:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
97
Workshop II: Writing the first draft
Another crucial phase in the research process is the transition from analysis
to synthesis; that is, from the collection and analysis of data to the writing of
the first draft. Many postgraduate students attest to the psychological difficulties they must overcome before writing the first draft can proceed; for many
the task appears insuperable, and much time can be wasted at this point as the
student prevaricates and justifies this prevarication by asserting the need to
continue the phase of analysis. Most supervisors have heard the plaintive cry:
"I still haven't read enough!"; and this is frequently a symptom of nerves as
the awesome moment approaches when the student must lay aside the security
of index cards and plunge into the writing phase.
Our experience suggests that problems arise particularly when the postgraduate student is unaware of the stages and steps through which research and
writing normally proceed. This manifests itself as an attempt to write a final
draft without the intermediate steps of constructing a flowchart of ideas (or
a conceptual map), writing a first rough draft, revising and editing, and then
rewriting. In the attempt to move immediately to writing the final draft, the
student becomes preoccupied with fine details, stylistic niceties, and attractive
presentation, often at the expense of development of ideas or argumentation;
as a result, the writing process is inhibited, and the product often characterised
by unevenness of thought and argument.
We tackled both of these problems - the psychological barriers to writing
and the failure to plan for and write a first draft - in a second workshop organized for our Masters-by-Coursework and Honours students. As with Workshop I, we began from the assumptions that group support and interaction are
needed not only to help students overcome feelings of inadequacy, but also to
develop practical skills in writing a first draft; that, compared to individual supervision, these two aims can be achieved more effectively by group discussions in a constructive workshop environment in which the student recognizes
that he/she is not the only one who has these problems; and that through the
workshop experience, the students' motivation and ability to tackle the writing
stage will be raised.
For the workshop strategy to succeed, it is imperative that the workshop
leader avoid presenting a lecture, and instead allow ideas, techniques and solutions to emerge from discussions in small groups of up to six students and supervisors. Discussion is primed by presenting the students with a list of questions prior to the workshop which they are asked to consider and come
prepared to answer and discuss. The Masters students were provided with the
following questions around which discussion would proceed:
This content downloaded from
193.225.127.100 on Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:33:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
98
1. What is different about writing
(a) the first draft, and
(b) the final draft?
2. How can psychological barriers to writing be overcome?
3. How can ideas/arguments be presented in such a way that the reader of the
dissertation will have no difficulty understanding them?
4. How can plagiarism be avoided?
5. What style of language should be used in a dissertation?
In addition to this list of questions, the Honours students were asked to divide
their topic into chapters with descriptive chapter-headings, and to be prepared
to discuss the rationale for their chosen thesis structure. They were also asked
to prepare a personal timetable for the various stages of the research and writ-
ing process. This exercise was felt necessary so that students would be awar
of the various stages in the writing process and be able to identify what stage
they had reached, and how much time to allow for each stage.
At relevant points during these workshops, the workshop leader introduced
ideas and concepts for which group discussion demonstrated a need. Two
points were felt to be of particular importance. Firstly, the idea was raised and
reinforced that a dissertation in an Honours or Coursework Masters
programme is by its very nature limited in scope; time restraints necessitate a
relatively modest length and breadth of coverage. Secondly, students wer
reminded of the important role a first draft plays in the total writing proces
The first draft should be written without excessive concern for detail, precise
language or fine tuning of the argument; these latter touches can be added in
the final draft, but in the first draft, the student should be concerned primaril
with getting his/her ideas onto paper as rapidly as possible. The importan
point is to get the student writing. The notion of a rough first draft as a desira
ble stage in the writing process may be a catalyst which can reduce inhibitions
that impede writing.
In commenting on the importance of the first draft, the workshop lead
presented certain strategies for clarifying the structure and flow of the argu-
ment in the student's mind. These included use of a flowchart or conceptu
map. An example of a flowchart and a concept map were shown to studen
(Figs. 2 and 3), taken from McEvedy (1984: 7) and Gowin (1981: 94).
Another potentially useful strategy for planning a first draft is Gowin
"Vee" technique as depicted in Fig. 4. This is a heuristic device capable of
clarifying in one's own mind and making explicit to others the concept
framework and methodological design to be employed. Fig. 5 is a comple
"Vee" for this paper.
Feedback from students again suggested that a workshop approach was perceived by students as a supportive and constructive technique for tackling the
This content downloaded from
193.225.127.100 on Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:33:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
99
I
- Effect 1|
L Cause 1J
I Cause - Effect 21
Cause 2J- Effect |
- Effect n|
| Cause n P
Cause Effect 11I Effect 2 Effect
CAUSE AND EFFECT
I Cause 2 I I Cause 3 Cause n
Advantages (Similarities) Disadvantages (Differences)
aspect
aspect
A
1
aspect
A
1
2
2
n
n
B
1
aspect
B
1
2
2
n
n
COMPARISON
DESCRIPTION
Fig. 2. Examples of flow-charts (McEvedy, 1984: 7).
issue of writing the thesis. By raising the issue of writing in the con
collective discussion, students were reminded that others shared the s
and difficulties and that there did exist strategies and techniques whi
overcome them. The following student comments are instructive:
- I think they [the workshops] focussed my ideas so I know exact
should expect, especially the idea about the first draft. Because I
that I'm not so worried that I have to produce a masterpiece the fir
I can just write down my ideas and then correct the draft later.
- I think that this idea of mapping out your chapters before actually
to write has made me a lot more confident... 1 think it's been a comfort
more than anything else.
This content downloaded from
193.225.127.100 on Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:33:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
100
ich can
be
n miseducative j-exemplified by
I indoctrination jsocialization conditioning
Fig. 3. An example of a concept map (Gowin, 1981: 94).
METHODOLOGICAL
CONCEPTUAL
QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS
ANSWERS REQUIRE AN
PHILOSOPHY
CLAIMS: VALUE
ACTIVE INTERPLAY /
BETWEEN THE RIGHT/
KNOWLEDGE
SIDE AND LEFT SIDE /
THEORIES
TRANSFORMATIONS
PRINCIPLES &
RECORDS
CONCEPTUAL SYSTEMS
CONCEPTS: REGULARITIES IN I
OR OBJECTS
EVENTS
OBJECTS
Fig. 4. Gowin's Vee diagram.
This content downloaded from
193.225.127.100 on Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:33:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
101
CONCEPTUAL
FOCAL QUESTION: METHODOLOGICAL
HOW CAN POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS BE
ASSISTED IN MASTERING THE CRUCIAL VALUE CLAIMS:
THEORIES:
STAGES OF PROBLEM DEFINITION AND
- Learning by discovery
Workshop discussions are more effective
\ THESIS WRITING? / In the crucial stages of
THESIS WRITING?
- Experiential learning
problem definition and first draft than
written guidelines and Individual supervision.
- Participatory learning
- Learning through discussion
^ ~ ~~\ / KKNOWLEDGE CLAIMS:
- Research skills can be developed systematically
PRINCIPLES:
I\~~ M|IC~~ ~- Group support Is effective In dissertation writing
- Integration of skills Into aca
- Group discusion Is useful to Individual students
programme
- Acquisition of knowledge and
through discussion and reflec
- University teachers (rather t
educational specialists) to c
!tTon \
I\~ klls|~~~ ~In defining the central research question.
i~~ s~~k,~illsU~ \ methodology, dissertatIon structure etc.
han
:onduct TRANSFORMATIONS:
skills workshops
- Video programmes
- Report to Postgraduate Coursework Board
CONCEPTS:
- Diagrams
Workshops, group support, supervision.
dissertation
DATA:
- Closed and open-ended questionnaires to students
and supervisors
- Video recordings
- Evaluatlve discussions
- Informal discussions
- Class observations
EVENTS/OBJECTS:
- Griffith University
- School of Modern Asian Studies
- Master-by-Coursework programme
- Honours programme
- Students and supervisors
- Workshops on Research Skills
Fig. 5. Gowin's Vee completed for the present paper.
One supervisor who attended the workshop recognized the impo
using the first draft as a means to streamline and improve super
- If this works, it seems like a more efficient way of doing things;
first draft down fairly quickly and you can get comments from yo
sor... In this way, the supervisor is going to be commenting on th
can be fixed up fairly readily, rather than having to go right back
later on.
Conclusions
We have argued that there are two crucial phases in the research process whic
are particularly important for coursework postgraduate students whose ti
is very limited. These are:
1. The definition of the research problem; and
2. The planning and writing of the first draft.
While it is important that conventional approaches such as written guidelines
This content downloaded from
193.225.127.100 on Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:33:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
102
good supervision, and textbooks on thesis research and writing be applied at
these problem phases, the group support and interaction which can be
achieved only through workshops may be an even more effective medium for
helping students. Practical guidance and psychological support which come
from workshops can reduce the postgraduate student's problems, and thus be
a factor in assisting the completion of the dissertation on time or reducing the
likelihood that the student will fail to complete the thesis at all. Aspects of
postgraduate research and writing can be learnt through the process of collective self-discovery which the workshop situation offers, and students can at the
same time be helped to overcome problems of isolation and low morale.
As a concluding note, we offer the following suggestions for further research
and development:
1. That guidelines on conducting workshops for postgraduate students be for-
mulated and published; such guidelines would incorporate workshop activities for the various stages of postgraduate research and writing; and
2. That research be pursued into the importance of structuring postgraduate
programmes so that students commence study at the same time; a common
starting point may facilitate discussion of shared tasks and problems at the
various stages of research and writing; such an arrangement may also facilitate provision of a support group whose purpose is the strengthening of student self-confidence.
Notes
1. These video programmes are not artificially staged commercial productions, but edited video
recordings of the workshops and evaluative discussions with students and supervisors. They are
provided with a narration which introduces and explains the purpose of the video. They were
produced primarily for future student intakes in the Honours and Masters-by-Coursework
programmes. Those interested in the workshop technique employed in M.A.S. may borrow or buy
copies of the tapes from the Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching, Griffith
University, Nathan, Queensland, 4111, Australia.
References
Anderson, J., Durston, B. and Poole, M. (1970, reprinted 1982) Thesis and Assignment Writing,
John Wiley and Sons, Brisbane.
Boud, D. (ed.) (1985) Reflection: Jurning Experience into Learning, Kogan Page, London.
Bruner, J.S. (1974) Beyond the Information Given, George Allen and Unwin, London.
Ibrahim, E.Z., McEvan, E.M. and Pitblado, R. (1980) "Doctoral Supervision at Sydney University, Hindrance or Help?", VESTES 23, 1, 18-22.
Gowin, D.B. (1981) Educating, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
This content downloaded from
193.225.127.100 on Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:33:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
103
McEvedy, R. (1984) "Analysis and Synthesis: Developing Report Writing Skills in Tertiary Students", in Part 1 of the Proceedings of the Australasian Fifth Annual Study Skills Conference,
Deakin University (15-18 May).
Moses, I. (1981) Postgraduate Study: Supervisors, Supervision and Information for Students,
Tertiary Education Institute, University of Queensland, Brisbane.
Moses, I. (1984) "Supervision of Higher Degree Students - Problem Areas and Possible Solutions", Higher Education Research and Development 3, 2, 153-165.
Northedge, A. (1975) "Learning Through Discussion in the Open University", Teaching at a
Distance, 2, 10-19.
Rix, A. and Zuber-Skerritt, 0. (1984) "Dissertation Research and Writing" - A Report, Centre
for the Advanced of Learning and Teaching, Griffith University, Brisbane.
Rudd, E. (1975) The Highest Education, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Science and Engineering Research Council (1983) Research Student and Supervisor. An Approach to Good Supervisory Practice, SERC, London.
Social Science Research Council (1980) Report, April 1979-March 1980, SSRC, London.
Turney, J. (1985) "Ph.D rates still too slow, says SERC", Times Higher Education Supplement,
14.6.85.
Welsh, J.M. (1979) The First Year of Postgraduate Research Study, SRHE Monograph, University of Surrey, Guildford.
Zuber-Skerritt, 0. and Knight, N. (1984) "Dissertation Design and Rationale", a video
programme (20 mins), C.A.L.T., Griffith University, Brisbane.
Zuber-Skerritt, 0. and Rix, A. (1984a) "Dissertation Research and Writing - Feedback on a
Workshop Course", a video programme (15 mins), C.A.L.T., Griffith University, Brisbane.
Zuber-Skerritt, 0. and Rix, A. (1984b) "Developing Skills in Dissertation Research and Writing
for Postgraduate Coursework Programmes". A paper presented to the 1984 SRHE Conference:
Education for the Professions, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London.
This content downloaded from
193.225.127.100 on Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:33:37 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms