JSS  Vol.3 No.11 , November 2015
How Different Is the Cognition towards Dissertation between Candidates for Mathematics Master Degree and Reviewers?
ABSTRACT
This research focused on the cognition differences of candidates for Ed. M. in mathematics and reviewers towards dissertation. We showed 3 different levels dissertations to 37 candidates and 5 reviewers and analyzed the scores mean on 55 items. The results indicated that most candidates’ cognitions towards dissertation were quite different from reviewers’, especially the cognitions on dissertation literature review, question expressing and analysis, research methods, research works, application of professional knowledge, results and conclusion. These candidates’ cognitions were overall superficial and not in place; even some of them were inexact or false. So the supervisors should introduce candidates for Ed. M. in mathematics some fundamental, concrete and detailed knowledge about dissertation in order to help them write out a good dissertation.

Cite this paper
Yang, Z. and Zhou, H. (2015) How Different Is the Cognition towards Dissertation between Candidates for Mathematics Master Degree and Reviewers?. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 3, 145-149. doi: 10.4236/jss.2015.311019.
References
[1]   Hou, Zh.T. (2010) Research on Quality Assurance of Master of Education Dissertation: Reviews and Reflection. Academic Degrees & Graduate Education, 6, 40-44.

[2]   Yang, Q.L. (2005) The Problems and Its Explanation Appeared in Practice of Master Education. Research in Educational Development, 6, 77-80.

[3]   Li, G.F. and Yang, Z.P. (2011) The Problems, Reasons and Countermeasures of Master of Education Dissertations. Academic Degrees & Graduate Education, 2, 20-25.

[4]   Zhang, D.Q. (2011) Mathematics Education for the Master Degree Thesis Writing Analysis of the Investigation. Journal of Mathematics Education, 6, 25-29.

[5]   Yang, Z.Z. and Sun, D.D. (2015) Research on Full-Time Master of Mathematics Education Candidates’ Cognition of Dissertation. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 3, 46-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jss.2015.310007

 
 
Top