IELTS Research Reports

Gaynor Lloyd-Jones, Charles Neame and Simon Medaneystaff and a member of the research team. There was good agreement between the two reviewers; theonly shared doubts concerned how to interpret a few comments about style or structure.9.1.3 Questionnaire for thesis supervisorsAs access and evaluation to more than 20 theses from varied domains would clearly be impossiblewithin the time scale and prevailing circumstances, a different approach was adopted towards thequality of students’ thesis writing. The effect on supervisory workload identified in the interview studyindicated that Summer Programme students’ thesis supervisors could shed light on students’ writingproficiency. A brief electronic questionnaire was constructed inviting the appropriate supervisor tocomment upon whether the English language proficiency of his or her supervisee had affected thethesis mark and/or the supervisory workload (Appendix 3). Where respondents stated that the student’sproficiency had had an adverse effect, they were asked to provide more details. An open questionallowed respondents to make any further comments they felt to be relevant. The questionnaire waspiloted within the CPLT with a previous Course Director and minor revisions made to the wording.The names of supervisors of the Summer Programme students were obtained from the relevantCourse Directors. The questionnaire was delivered electronically early in November 2008 after finalthesis submission. Due to an oversight, the supervisors of the two Summer Programme studentswho declined to participate in the exam script study were not included so questionnaires were sentto 22 supervisors. The accompanying email named the Summer Programme student concerned andexplained that the questionnaire referred to this particular supervision. Therefore each supervisorreceived an individual invitation although the questionnaire was identical. Non-responders receivedreminders one and two weeks later.9.1.4 Academic progressThe time of completion of the study, January 2009, coincided with the period during which studentsreceive notification about the outcomes of their degree awards. The research team was granted accessto these records for the Summer Programme students. Significantly for the present study and thefocus on thesis writing, the records provided details about the outcomes of thesis marking. CranfieldUniversity does not award distinctions for Masters programmes, so there is no differentiation ingrading amongst those students who have passed. However, there are three possible categories ofoutcome. A straight pass, a pass subject to minor corrections and a revise and represent instructionwhere the student is required to make major changes to the thesis within a given time frame, around3 months. Minor corrections are not a major impediment to the gaining of a degree but the necessityto revise and represent leaves a question mark over the outcome until the revised thesis is markeda second time. With the questionnaire data, the records provide further information about SummerProgramme students’ progress with tasks that most challenge their language skills.9.2 Findings9.2.1 Summer Programme students – language assessment at entry29 students took the Summer Programme in 2007, 26 of whom were destined for taught courseMasters programmes. One withdrew prior to the start of the Masters and another student transferredto a research programme early on in the year which left 24 students who completed both SummerProgramme and Masters programmes and who contributed to the present research. Numbers weresmall and considered inappropriate for statistical analysisl.162 www.ielts.org