A Comparison of Key Characteristics of Undergraduate and SLQF Level 10 Master’s Theses: A Case Study in the Faulty of Agriculture, University of Ruhuna.

Abstract

Preparation of a thesis has been included into some undergraduate and postgraduate programmes to develop higher order competencies. A thesis, while being strong on scientific merits, should also be free from errors, well-presented and follow the prescribed guidelines. The objective of this study was to analyse the undergraduate (UG) and Sri Lanka Qualification Framework (SLQF) Level-10 Master (M) theses submitted by the students of the Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ruhuna (FoA) in terms of basic characteristics including page numbers, referencing, tables and figures and the level of adherence to the guidelines. Theses submitted by UG (n=169) and M (n=47) students during 2017- 2021 were studied. The sum of the pages in introduction, literature review (LR), methodology and results and discussion (RD) sections of M theses (52.8) was significantly higher than that of an UG theses (37.9). The relative volume of those chapters in UG thesis were 9.1%, 38.1%, 18.2% and 34.5%, respectively while the corresponding values of a M thesis were 8.9%, 38%, 13.1% and 39.7%. The total number of pages in chapters and the whole thesis of some UG and even M theses were unusually less. The mean number of pages in the LR section of a UG thesis (14.5) was significantly lower than the minimum page number stipulated by the FOA thesis preparation guidelines. Compared to the total number of tables+figures in the RD section of UG (16.0) and M (20.8) theses, the number of pages in that chapter of UG (13.1) and M thesis (21.0) were low. The number of non-repeating citations used in the RD section of UG and M theses were as low as 6.0 and 12.5, respectively. As high as 27% and 21% of the UG and M theses respectively, had not cited any reference in the RD section. The percentage of journal-articles in the total number of items in the reference list of a M thesis (63.3%) was lower than that of an UG thesis (71.7%). The number of recent journal citations (within 5 or10 year years) in M theses were significantly lower than that of UG theses. Incomplete reference lists, non-listing of cited reference and listing of the uncited references were common both in UG and M theses. The study highlights the importance of careful scrutiny of the thesis by the supervisor and educating students about thesis preparation and evaluation criteria.