Dissertation Critique

Introduction

In order to evaluate a dissertation, I read the entire document and took detailed notes. I then created a list of pros and cons for the work. I also consulted with experts in the field to get their opinion on the merits of the dissertation. Overall, I spent a great deal of time carefully considering all aspects of the work before rendering my opinion. The process was demanding, but it was also necessary in order to produce a thorough and accurate evaluation. To facilitate the process, I used two rubrics: Applied Dissertation Rubric (see Table A1 in Appendix) and the Dissertation General Rubric (see Table A2). In the end, I believe that my analysis provides a fair and objective assessment of the dissertation. The sections that follow include Dissertation Analysis and Critique, Conclusions and Recommendations, References, and Appendices, in which the rubrics used during the evaluation process, are attached.

Dissertation Analysis and Critique

Problem Statement

The author clearly conveyed the project and problem within the context of the relevant literature. A strong rationale was provided to justify the need for the research. The purpose of the dissertation was clear and focused. The focus was generally defined as technologys role in higher education in Tanzania. However, the nature of the problem was spelled out, and the background was given with reference to various factors impacting the issuesuch as resistance to change, fear of change, lack of facilities, lack of knowledge, and lack of resources (Biggam, 2018). Moreover, terms are defined, and suitable references to appropriate literature are made to show where this gap in the research needed to be closed. Research questions were also clearly stated and the chapters that followed laid out.

Review of the Literature

The author provided a comprehensive review of literature relevant to the study. It was well organized, according to the themes related to the topic. Those themes included: Instructional-Technology Domains, Relationships Between Instructional-Technology Domains, Development of Instructional Technology, Technology and Learning, The Nature of Perceptions, Perceptions of Technology and Teaching, Perceptions of Self-Efficacy, Capability and Context Beliefs, Concerns-Based Adoption Model, Innovation and Stages of Concern, Characteristics of Stages-of-Concern Profiles, Diffusion of Innovation and Adoption of Technology, Barriers to Integrating Technology Into Instruction, Principles of Change, Resistance to Innovation, Conditions That Influence the Use of Instructional Technology, and Community of Practice and Design-Based Research. A nuanced critique regarding the relatedness of the research and scholarship reviewed was given under each theme. However, the author did not include specific criteria for inclusion/ exclusion of various theoretical perspectives/ empirical studies, which criteria is important (ODoherty et al., 2018 There was also no summary given at the end of the literature review, bringing together all the most relevant points made.

Research Design and Method

Shao (2012) gave appropriate detail in description of subjects, design/approach, methods/procedures, and statistical analyses. The sample, the sample size, the method used to collect the sample, the method used to collect data, the instruments used, the validity of the instruments, and how instruments were implementedall of this was discussed and described in detail in the appropriate section. The methods used to analyze statistical and qualitative data were also described clearly, as were all processes for data collection and analysis.

Results

All pertinent results were reported in clear and concise manner. Table/figures were labeled appropriately and included proper legends. The data were appended, and the information was all presented well in tables throughout the results section, making it easy to see how the results answered the research questions.

Discussion

Discussion and results were framed by restating the research questions, and the discussion proceeded thematically. First up was Demographic Characteristics of Faculty Members. Then each research question was addressed in order, with tables implanted throughout, organized and presented according to appropriate guidelines. The discussion returned the topic to literature discussed earlier, with several references made to this literature and how the research impacted it, and how gaps were filled by the new data. The themes addressed in the literature review were also picked back up in this section and explored in more detail based on the new information obtained from the data analysis and results.

Summary

The dissertation concluded with an appropriate amount of recommendations as well as a discussion of limitations of the study. The summation helped to give the study some focus, and recommendations for further research were discussed too. Several points were given for recommending the implementation of the instructional approach that the studys results best supported.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The dissertation had a well-organized structure that flowed smoothly from one section to the next. The literature support was excellent, and the methodology was solid. However, there were a few areas that could have been improved. First, there was no explanation of inclusion/exclusion criteria. Second, there was no discussion of ethics. Third, there were no summaries between sections. Finally, the missing elements (inclusion/exclusion criteria and discussion of ethics) should be addressed in future versions of the dissertation. Overall, the dissertatio was well-written and provided a great deal of insightful information. However, there are a few areas that could be improved upon in future versions.

A well-written dissertation is the product of careful planning, extensive research, and critical thinking. However, even the most outstanding dissertations can be improved. Thus, even though Shaos (2012) dissertation is fairly solid, here are a few recommendations for ways to take the dissertation to the next level.

First, the author should be sure to give himself enough time to research and write. Rushing through the process will result in a rushed and sloppy final product. While Shaos dissertation does not feel rushed, it is lacking some elements that would have made it much betterfor instance, it has no discussion of inclusion/exclusion criteria, or how literature was selected; it lacks adequate summaries between chapters; and it does not discuss any ethical considerations, all of which matter (Mak et al., 2019).

Second, the author should not be afraid to challenge his own assumptions and question his own sources. The best dissertations are those that push boundaries and offer new insights (Olan & Edge, 2019). That is because a dissertation is a chance to pursue an intellectual interest and to contribute something new to the academic community, to fill gaps in existing research, and to answer questions and address problems that have gone unaddressed till now. The best dissertations are those that push boundaries that others have not even seen; they are the ones that bring fresh insights to old problems. In order to write a...

…Poorly organized. Weak rationale for choice of theoretical perspectives/ empirical studies. Insufficient description of research samples, methodologies, & findings.

Comprehensive review of literature relevant to the study. Moderately well organized. Some mention of the relatedness of scholarship. Moderately clear rationale for choice of theoretical perspectives/ empirical studies. Somewhat focused description of research samples, methodologies, & findings.

Review of the literature is fairly well organized, acknowledging the relatedness of the research and scholarship. The rationale for including/excluding various theoretical perspectives/empirical studies are apparent. Includes description of research samples and methodologies.

Comprehensive review of literature relevant to the study. Well organized, with nuanced critique regarding the relatedness of the research and scholarship reviewed. Includes specific criteria for inclusion/ exclusion of various theoretical perspectives/ empirical studies. Clearly describes research samples, methodologies, & findings.

3

3

Methods / Approach

Little or no description of (if applicable): subjects, design/approach, methods/procedures, and statistical analyses.

Inadequate description of (if applicable): subjects, design/approach, methods/procedures, and statistical analyses.

Moderate or excessive description of (if applicable): subjects, design/approach, methods/procedures, and statistical analyses.

Most detail included/slightly excessive detail in description of (if applicable): subjects, design/ approach, methods/procedures, and statistical analyses.

Appropriate detail in description of (if applicable): subjects, design/approach, methods/procedures, and statistical analyses.

5

4

Results /

Outcomes

Absence of pertinent results. Table/figures are absent or inappropriate, not labeled, and no legend.

Few pertinent results. Table/figures are inappropriate or incomplete, poorly labeled, and inadequate legend.

Some pertinent results not reported; results presented in clear and concise manner. Table/figures generally labeled appropriately and included legend.

Most pertinent results reported and in fairly clear and concise manner. Table/figures labeled appropriately and included legend.

All pertinent results reported and in clear and concise manner. Table/figures are labeled appropriately and included legend.

5

5

Discussion

&

Summary

Little or no discussion of project findings/outcomes. Displayed poor grasp of understanding. Conclusion/summary not supported by findings/outcomes.

Major topics or concepts inaccurately described. Considerable relevant discussion missing. Conclusions/summary not entirely supported by findings/outcomes.

Discussion is too brief/excessive, needs to be more concise of major findings/outcomes. Several inaccuracies and omissions. Conclusions/summary generally based on findings/outcomes.

Discussion sufficient and with few errors, though not particularly engaging or thought-provoking. Greater foundation needed from past work in area. Conclusions/summary based on outcomes and appropriate, but included no recommendations.

Brief and concise discussion of major findings/outcomes. Was superior, accurate, engaging, and thought-provoking. Conclusions/summaries and recommendations appropriate and clearly based on outcomes.

5

6

Writing Quality

The dissertation lacks clarity and precision. Sentences are poorly constructed and confusing. Word choice, grammar, punctuation, and spelling reflects poor grasp of basic writing conventions. Narrative absent. Incorrect use of APA.

The dissertation is unclear throughout. Frequent errors in word choice, grammar, punctuation, and spelling. The narrative discussion lacks focus and coherence. Frequent errors in use of APA conventions.

The dissertation is moderately clear. Several errors in word choice, grammar, punctuation, and spelling. The narrative lacks focus. Uneven application of APA conventions.

The dissertation is written with clarity and precision. Writing is understandable. Word choice, grammar, punctuation, and spelling are adequate. The narrative is logical and coherent. Mostly correct use of APA.

The dissertation is written with great clarity and precision. Each sentence is understandable. Word choice, grammar, punctuation, and spelling are excellent. The narrative is logical and coherent. Correct use of APA.

5

7

Overall Contribution to the Field

Makes no contribution to the field.

Makes some minor contribution to either the research literature or to practice.

Makes some contribution to the research literature and practice.

Makes…