1. Thesis Evaluation Criteria
Prof. Dr. Mohamed Amin Embi
Pusat Pembangunan Akademik

2. Examiner’s First Question
• What is this one about? Examiners have little
time available, so they want to extract the most
in the shortest time.
• Does it cite the right things?
• What is achieved? Do I believe it?
• Are all the pieces there?
• Is the argument clear?

3. What examiners are looking for?
• Review of Literature
• Methodology
• Presentations of Results
• Discussion & Conclusions

4. Review of Literature
• To what extent is the review RELEVANT to the
research study?
• Has the candidate slipped into “Here is all I
know about x”?
• Is there evidence of CRITICAL APPRAISAL of
other work, or is the review just descriptive?

5. Review of Literature
• How well has the candidate mastered the
THEORETICAL underpinnings?
• Does the candidate make the LINKS between the
review & his/her methodology explicit?
• Is there a SUMMARY of the essential features of
other work as it relates to this study?

6. Methodology
• What PRECAUTIONS were taken against likely
sources of BIAS.
• What are the LIMITATIONS in the
methodology? Is the candidate aware of this?
• Is the methodology for DATA COLLECTION
APPROPRIATE?

7. Methodology
• Are the techniques ANALYSIS PPROPRIATE?
• In the circumstances, has the best methodology
been chosen?
• Has the candidate give an ADEQUATE
JUSTIFICATION to the methodology?

8. Presentation of Results
• Have the QUESTIOMS in fact been
ANSWERED?
• Have the HYPOTHESES been TESTED?
• Is the LEVEL & FORM of ANALYSIS
APPROPRIATE for the data?

9. Presentation of Results
• Could the PRESENTATIONS of the results been
made clearer?
• Are PATTERNS & TRENDS in the results
ACCURATELY indentified & summarized?

10. Discussion & Conclusions
• Is the candidate aware of the possible limits to
reliability & validity of the work?
• Have the MAIN POINTS to emerge from the
results been PICKED UP for discussion?
• Are there LINKS made to the literature?

11. Discussion & Conclusions
• Is there evidence of ATTEMPTS at theory
building or reconceptualisation of problems?
• Are there speculations? Are they well grounded
in the results?

12. Assessment Criteria
Presentation & Clarity
• The reader should be able to read the text
without difficulty.
• The text should be clear & „tell a story‟.
• The reference list should be complete & accurate.
• The thesis should be no longer than necessary.

13. Assessment Criteria
Integration & Coherence
• There should be logical & rational links between
the component parts of the thesis.
• There should be an intellectual WHOLENESS to
the thesis.

14. Assessment Criteria
Contribution to Knowledge (Masters)
• Independent research based on sound
knowledge.
• Evidence of exercise of independent thought.

15. Assessment Criteria
Contribution to Knowledge (Ph.D.)
• Discovery of new knowledge.
• Formation of theories
• Innovative reinterpretation of known data &
established ideas.

16. Assessment Criteria
Originality & Creativity
• Candidate‟s own work.
• Evidence of an appropriate level of independent
work.

17. Assessment Criteria
Review of Relevant Literature
• Demonstration of detailed knowledge of original
sources.
• Possession of a thorough knowledge of the field.
• Understanding of the main theoretical &
methodological issues.

18. Assessment Criteria
Statement of Problem
• The problem to be tackled in the research should
emerge naturally form the literature review.
• The problem which has been identified should
be worthwhile investigating.
• Clear & succinct statement of the problem
together with a set of questions/hypothes/

19. Assessment Criteria
Methods of Enquiry Adopted
• Appropriate justification of methods chosen.
• Demonstration that methods employed have
been chosen through a conscious process of
deliberation.

20. Assessment Criteria
Analysis of Data
• The analytic methods used need to be justified &
sufficient for the task.
• Sensitivity to problems of reliability,
measurement error & sources of bias.
• Understanding the assumptions behind the
test(s) employed.

21. Assessment Criteria
Analysis of Data
• Analyses clearly linked to questions/hypotheses
posed.
• Data presented in a well-structured way.
• Demonstration of WHY each analysis was
conducted, HOW analysis was done & WHAT it
tell us about the data.

22. Assessment Criteria
Discussion of Outcomes
• Discussion should summarise without repetition
what has been achieved in the research.
• Links should be drawn between your work &
work reviewed in the literature review.
• The main findings should be INTERPRETED &
related to theory.

23. Assessment Criteria
Discussion of Outcomes
• There should be reflection of the research
process as a whole.
• There should be a section discussing limitations
of research design.
• There should be some POINTERS to future
work.

24. THESIS DEFENCE
• Viva Voce means „lively discussion‟.
• The examiners may have decided before the
exam whether to pass you or not.
• The viva is to check it‟s your work.
• A chance to clarify things that aren‟t clear in the
thesis.

25. Tips for VIVA
• Try to attend one or more thesis defenses prior
to yours – focus on the interactions that occur.
• Find opportunities to discuss your research with
your friends & colleagues – listen carefully to
their questions.
• Don‟t be overly „defensive‟ at your defense.

26. Tips for VIVA
• Judge whether a particular remark by the panel
is a question that needs clarification or a mere
suggestion to be considered.
• Do not be nervous.
• Describe your work in a confident tone &
convincing manner.

27. Tips for VIVA
• Avoid wordy power point presentation – if you
can‟t help it, use highlighters (bold, italics,
underline, colours etc).
• Stick to the time allocated (normally 15-20
minutes).
• Before presentation, provide a list of papers
presented & published on your study (if you
have).

28. Tips for VIVA
• Don‟t spent too much time elaborating on the
title and introduction – focus more on statement
of problem, methodology & findings.
• Display main findings/trends – need not give
too details analysis – because examiners have
read them.
• Highlight your contribution to knowledge.

29. Tips for VIVA
• Prepare not more than 15 slides & not less than 8
slides.
• Spend not more that 2 minutes per slides.
• Avoid „reading‟ from the white board – face the
audience & have eye contact with the panel.

30. Slides for VIVA
• Title (1 slide)
• Intro/Overview (1 slide)
• Statement of Problem (1 slide)
• Research Objectives (1 slide)
• Research Questions/Hypotheses (1 or 2 slides)

31. Slides for VIVA
• Research Design (1 or 2 slides)
• Summary of Findings (2 or 3 slides)
• Main Implications of Findings (1 slides)
• Contribution & Suggestions for Future Work (1
slide)

32. VERDICT
• Passed with no correction.
• Passed subject to minor correction.
• Passed with major/substantive
revision/amendment.
• Resubmission for examination.
• Failed.

33. QUALITY
• EXCEPTIONAL – no correction (Fewer than 5%
worldwide)
• EXCELLENT - very minor correction (Fewer
than 20% worldwide)
• SATISFACTORY/FAIR – major correction
(sound but lacks a compelling element is some
respect)
• WEAK – resubmission because the thesis has
fatal flaws.