Dr. mohd arif hussain bhat

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION: RABINDRABHARATI UNIVERSITY
ISSN : 0972-7175
Vol.: XXIV, No. :12(II), 2021– 2022 16
A STUDY OF PRACTICES RELATED TO M.ED. DISSERTATION OF DIFFERENT
UNIVERSITIES IN INDIA
Dr. Mohd Arif Hussain Bhat
AA Lecturer, Govt. Degree College Vailoo, Larnoo Anantnag, J&K, India
Shahnawaz Yoqube
Ex. Research Scholar, School of Education, DAVV, Indore, M.P., India
Firdose Ahmad Mir
Assistant Professor, Govt. Degree College Vailoo, Larnoo Anantnag, J&K, India
Mussarat Mushtaq Mattoo
Assistant Professor, Govt. Degree College Kishtwar, Jammu & Kashmir, India
Rouf Ahmad Malik
Assistant Professor, Govt. Degree College Vailoo Larnoo Anantnag, J&K, India
Abstract
The present study is related with, “A Study of Practices Related to M.Ed. Dissertation of Different
Universities in India”. The objective of the study was to find out the status of Dissertation in M.Ed.
Programme in different Indian universities/affiliated colleges. The study was conducted on 105
respondents belonging to different colleges and universities of North-West-Central regions of India. The
sample was selected by using purposive sampling technique. For collection of data a questionnaire was
developed by the researcher having close ended and open ended questions. The data was analyzed by
using Frequency Counts, Percentages and Content Analysis. The main findings of the research were that
about 83% of the Universities/affiliated colleges conduct M.Ed. course in one year full time mode, 17%
are conducting on two years part time basis. 86% of the respondents mentioned that the selection of topic
for dissertation is done collaboratively (upon the consensus of supervisor and student) where as 8% of
respondents reveal that selection of topic is done by expert committee and 6% of the respondents reveal
that selection of problem is made by Supervisor alone.
Rationale of the Study
At present, the most important programme for preparing teacher educators is that of Masters in Education
(M.Ed.). Scrutiny of the curricula of most of the M.Ed. programmes would reveal that these have not
been specifically designed to prepare research oriented teacher educators. There are some M.Ed.
programmes in different universities where provisions do not exist for even writing a dissertation. The
product of these programmes would certainly not be in a position to conduct research, initiate innovation
on their own and induct teacher trainees in research in these areas, which are essential functions of teacher
and teacher educators.
In existing teacher education courses in Indian universities there is need to have training for primary and
secondary graduates for making them innovative and creative teacher and teacher educators. Such
programmes need to be designed with particular focus on practicum that would familiarize the trainees
with school situation, problem in education and other issues through the dissertation with minimum time.
The improvement in research practices in M.Phil. and Ph.D. has been recommended by UGC (University
Grant Commission) from time to time and on the behalf of it NCERT and NCTE recommended in 1998

ISSN : 0972-7175
Vol.: XXIV, No. :12(II), 2021– 2022 17
and also in 2005 the new curriculum where the dissertation was made compulsory but there are no
guidelines for related practices to be used for accomplishing the dissertation.
The researches have been conducted abroad as well as in India related to caption listed below:
Status of M.Ed. Curriculum:
Studies related to this aspect have been undertaken by;
Nirpura (2012), studied the perception of the teacher educator about the effectiveness of existing
curriculum of M.Ed. of kurukshetra university Punjab. Researcher found that the M.Ed. students opined
that (Paper vii) dissertation should be retained as such.
Kumara, Mahapatra S.N (2013), investigated the relevance of present M.Ed. curriculum in the University
of Chhattisgarh state and found that majority of teacher educators opined both career and entrance
examination should be taken into consideration. There was no area of specialisation for student’s interest.
Research on Curriculum of Teacher Education:
Studies related to this aspect have been undertaken by;
Prashar (1963), Shah (1988), Bhosale (1992), Kumar (1996), etc.
Parshar (1963) recommended that theory should be coordinated with practice. NCERT made an
intensive study by interviewing the teacher educators and pupil teachers and concluded that the syllabus
was too lengthy.
Shah (1988) made an attempt to develop a tool for evaluating teacher educators teaching M.Ed. classes
at the department in Gujarat University. Researcher found that the highest mean score of first rank
teachers belong to department was 15.32, the second rank order mean score was 25.16 and 14th mean
score rank was 76.25.
Bhosale (1992) studied on new curriculum of teacher education developed by all the universities of
Maharashtra. The findings of the study were; there was variation in the topics with respect to some
papers. The number of lessons taught by student-teacher was not same in all. Some of the optional paper
and nature of practical work was also different with respect to curricula.
Kumar (1996) compared the curricula of teacher education programs at secondary level in south states
with regional colleges of education and found that the curricula of teacher education is inadequate and
unrevised from a long time and needs definite revision.
Trends of Research:
Studies related to this aspect have been undertaken by:
Singh (1987), Rais & Madhulika (1991), lokesh koul, Andrews & Richard (2007) etc.
Rais & Mudhulika (1991) studied 9000 thesis and come to the following conclusions that 78% of
supervisors felt that hardly any theses made any intellectual contribution, 60% supervisors thought most
of them were repeating studies and 70% supervisors worked in isolation.
Lokesh koul reported that standard and level of research work is marked by
Mediocrity and poor quality in a majority of cases.
Research on Supervisor, Supervision of Dissertation:
Studies related to this aspect have been undertaken by:
Bhatnagar (1988), Nayak (1988), Thomas (1995), Ives (et.al.) (1998), Anderson (et.al.) 2006, Armitage
(2006), Drennan & Clarke (2009), Lomax (et.al.) (2009) Armstong (2012), Fan (2013), etc.
Ives, Glenice, Rowley & Glenn (1998) reported that the allocation of supervisors to the students whose
topics were matched with their supervisors, expertise and develop good interpersonal working
relationships with supervisor to make good progress.
Armitage (2006) studied that relationship of supervisor & student, role, policy, practice and management
of dissertation and found that there is need to manage expectation and build trust and found that students

ISSN : 0972-7175
Vol.: XXIV, No. :12(II), 2021– 2022 18
take different approaches to their dissertation.
Drennan & Clarke (2009) noted that quality of supervision does vary from student to student and one
of the main issue is the lack of contact between supervisor and student.
Thomas (1995) concluded that there is lack of training and guidelines for supervisors in the universities.
From the above evidences, it is clear that researches have been conducted on teacher education and
research trends but there is no research conducted on the practices related to M.Ed. dissertation and its
status in different Indian universities.
Keeping in mind the M.Ed. programme must be treated as a professional programme not just aimed to
produce academicians or teachers but researchers in the field of education as well; the researcher found
that there is need to scrutinize the dissertation component of existing M.Ed. programme of universities
& colleges and think ways & means to improve the dissertation related practices. Hence, the present
study was selected by the researcher.
Statement of the Problem
A Study of Practices Related to M.Ed. Dissertation of Different Universities in India.
Key word
Dissertation: Dissertation is designed to enable students to undertake a more or less in-depth study of
some aspects of education. Through dissertation an M.Ed. student is expected to demonstrate:
A critical awareness of contemporary (and traditional issues) and problems within the students
chosen knowledge domain.
 Ability to utilize research originally & critically to interpret and apply knowledge
The ability and capacity to undertake empirical and/ non-empirical forms of research related to
chosen knowledge domain.
Ability to communicate their conclusion and knowledge, rationale and processes under priming
these, to specialist and non-specialist, audiences clearly and unambiguously
Practices:
Practices related to M.Ed. dissertation refer to aspects and processes including the following ones:
Mode and process of M.Ed. admissions
Provision of dissertation in M.Ed. curricula
Process of allocation of supervisor
Selection of topic for dissertation
Process of supervision of dissertation
Mode and process of evaluation of dissertations etc.
Objectives of the Study
1. To study the status of Dissertation in M.Ed. Programme in different Indian universities/affiliated
colleges.
2. To study the Practices related to Admission, Allocation /Selection of guide in M.Ed. programme.
3. To study the practices related to Evaluation and Assessment of Dissertation in different Indian
Universities/affiliated colleges.
Delimitation of the Study
Study was restricted to only those Universities and Affiliated Colleges in India where the M.Ed. course

ISSN : 0972-7175
Vol.: XXIV, No. :12(II), 2021– 2022 19
was conducted with dissertation its compulsory component. For the purpose of convenience and because
of time constraints, the study was limited to North-West & Central India only.
Methodology of the Study
Sample and Sampling Technique
For current study the researcher used Purposive sampling technique. The study has been conducted on
those Indian universities and colleges where the M.Ed. programme is offered. Researcher listed all those
universities from North-West-central regions and selected some of those colleges and universities as
sample according to the following criteria. Those where dissertation is compulsory for each student,
those where only specific student are eligible to undertake dissertation, those where optional paper is
treated as substitute to dissertation. Further, since the questionnaire was to be answered online the
respondent whose e-mail addresses were available formally on the internet or could be obtained through
acquaintees were including in the sample. Sample consisted of faculty from Departments / Affiliated
colleges of different universities as given below Table .1
Table 1: Universities and Faculty Approached
S.No Name Of University Faculty Approached
01 D.A.V.V., Indore 10
02 National University, Jaipur 03
03 Rohilkand University, Bareilly 04
04 Lucknow University 04
05 M.S. University, Baroda 04
06 University Of Kashmir 04
07 Central University Of Kashmir 02
08 Kurkshatra University 03
09 Jammu University 03
10 B.H.U., Banaras U.P. 03
11 Delhi University 07
12 Awadh University, Faizabad 04
13 Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, Gorakhpur University 05
14 J.M.I university, Delhi 04
15 Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University, New Delhi 02
16 Kanpur University 01
17 University Of Rajasthan 02
18 Allahabad University 04
19 Shivaji University Kolhapur 04
20 Mahatma Gandhi Kashividya Peeth University,
Varanasi
05
21 Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha,, Delhi 04
22 Guru Gasidas Central University, Chattisgarh 06
23 H.N.B Central University, Garhwal 04
24 Sagar University, MP 04
25 R.I.E Bhopal (institute) 02
26 Punjab University 03
27 Central University Haryana 02
28 Himachal Pradesh University 02

ISSN : 0972-7175
Vol.: XXIV, No. :12(II), 2021– 2022 20
Total 105
Tools of the Present Study
For the present study, main tool to collect required data was questionnaire. A questionnaire was
developed having closed ended and open ended questions along. The curriculum of different universities
was also used as a part of tool for present study.
The selection of the tool for the particular study depended upon various dimensions such as the objectives
of the study, amount of time, suitability etc. Taking these dimension in consideration the investigator
developed a questionnaire with selected title and way of submit.
Name of the Tool: “M.Ed. dissertation status questionnaire”.
Submission mode: “Google docs” (online)
Preliminary draft of the Questionnaire:
In the present research work the objective was to study the status of dissertation in M.Ed. During the
construction of items the review of related literature and other attributes has resulted in selection of
following 43 items of questionnaire.
The details of the 43 items have been given below:
Table 2: List of the dimensions and number of items prepared
S.No Dimensions No. of
Items
01 Admission criteria 03
02 Dissertation status 01
03 Provision of Elective paper in lieu of
dissertation
01
04 Duration of programme 03
05 Examination procedure 02
06 Provision of synopsis 05
07 Allocation of supervisor 05
08 Selection of topic 03
09 Supervision 08
10 Incompatibility factors 03
11 Procedure of Evaluation 05
12 Provision of rejection 04
Total 43
The constructed tool was submitted to few experts and like-minded colleagues who have adequate
knowledge in the field of educational research to improve the quality, validity, effectiveness,
purposiveness, language and presentation etc. of this tool and also discussion was made between the
researcher and the experts.
Second draft:
Researcher followed the suggestions of experts and modified the tool by adding, deleting, sequence
arranging in proper and improving language of items in questionnaire. Thus 34 items were selected.
Researcher sent the questionnaire once again to the experts for their opinion they found that the quality
of tool was much better than first one and experts opined that this tool is purposeful for the present
research work.
Final draft:
Finally the pooled items were written in a best format to facilitate clarity in comprehension using

ISSN : 0972-7175
Vol.: XXIV, No. :12(II), 2021– 2022 21
appropriate font size and logical order of items. Researcher was already convinced about the validity,
reliability and objectivity for the items. In this questionnaire respondents were required to reply “Yes”
or “No” and some items were as such where the respondents had to write a brief answer based on their
own view.
Description of the final Tool
The whole text of the questionnaire is spread up into seven sections with 34 questions. These sections
cover up almost all the aspects related to the problems of the research work. An overview of the
questionnaire is given in the following table:
Table 3: List of dimensions and numbers of questions in the questionnaire
Sections Dimensions Item No. Number
of
questions
Asked
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
General information
Admission criteria
Duration of the course
Status of dissertation
Allocation of supervisor
Selection of dissertation topic
Supervision
Problems in supervision
Evaluation of dissertation
1,2,3,4, 5
6
7,8,9,
10
11,12,13,14
15,16,
17,1819,20,21,22,23,24
25,26
27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34
5
1
3
1
4
2
8
2
8
Total 34
Data collection procedure:
Data were collected with the help of the questionnaires. It was emphasized that the respondents should
answer freely and frankly to every question and their responses would be kept confidential. For the
present study the questionnaire were made online with the help of Google docs. The process of data
collection was completed in the following phases, which are as under:
Consulting websites and identifying colleges/universities having M.Ed. (Education) and above.
Identifying faculties and their email addresses.
Sending them on-line Questionnaire for response.
Sending reminders after a fortnight.
Following up through Phone/Mobile.

ISSN : 0972-7175
Vol.: XXIV, No. :12(II), 2021– 2022 22
Researcher listed those universities and colleges were the M.Ed. course is conducted through the
consulting website of University Grant Commission (UGC). Identifying the faculties and then e-mail
addresses from universities websites and selected 140 email addresses of the teachers of different
universities/affiliated colleges and other institutes from department of education and sent them on-line
Questionnaires for response. In which some email addresses were inactive, researcher went to few of
them personally for the collection of data. Sending reminders after given time for the response and also
follow up through phone/mobile was done.
Statistical techniques used:
The following statistical techniques were applied in the present study.
1. Frequency counts.
2. Percentages.
3. Content analysis
Major Findings:
Status of Dissertation in M.Ed. Programme:
The findings related to this objective are as under:
1. Regarding place of dissertation in M.Ed., proforma of different universities/ institutes, it was
found that 98% responses confirmed that the dissertation is compulsory for every student where
as 2% responses revealed that it depends upon the choice of the students.
2. It was found that 83% of the universities conduct M.Ed. course in one year full time mode where
as 17% were conducting both full time one year and two year part time also.
3. Outcome of this item shows that 94%, 4% and 2% responses respectively were in favour of one
academic session, one calendar year, and two academic years/sessions.
Practices related to admission, selection of topic and allocation of guide in M.Ed.
1. It was found that 56% universities/colleges students were admitted on entrance basis, 24%
responses showed that students were admitted on merit basis, and 20% of universities in North –
West Central India follow the procedure of entrance cum merit/merit cum interview/entrance cum
interview.
2. 86% responses mentioned that the selection of topic for dissertation is selected collaboratively
(Consensus between supervisor and students), 8% responses reveal that selection of topic is done
by expert committee and 6% responses revealed that selection of topic is made by Supervisors
only.
3. It was found that the procedure of allocation of supervisor in different universities/colleges were
as follows: 4% of students choose guide in collaborative manner in which student’s and teacher’s
choice is considered. 84% respondents said there was a departmental policy for the allocation of
supervisor, 8% respondents admitted that student choose their guide according their area of
interest and 4% responses mentioned that sometimes M.Ed. scholars and department discuss with
each other only after that allocation of supervisor to the students.
4. 33% responses reveal that there are different procedures for allocation of supervisors in different
universities/institutes and most of the responses revealed that allocation is done by departmental
committee, ranking of the teachers and students and also some institutes follow lottery or random
sampling method, few institute giving preference to merit of student and seniority of the teacher.

ISSN : 0972-7175
Vol.: XXIV, No. :12(II), 2021– 2022 23
5. Response analysis revealed that 82% responses show that all teachers are eligible, 15% stated
that only selective teachers were eligible and 3% responses showed that adhoc and contractual
teachers are not eligible for supervision of M.Ed. dissertation work.
6. From the responses it was found that 11% responses show that number of students for dissertation
work depends upon willingness of student, 56% responses shows that number of students for
supervision depends upon willingness of teacher with a limit by institutional policy, 4% responses
show that number depends upon willingness of both teacher and student. 29% responses
mentioned that it depend upon number of students to be admitted in M.Ed. course and also the
availability of faculty members.
Practices related to evaluation and assessment of dissertation:
1. There were 73% responses in confirmation of semester examination system and it was observed that
27% responses were infavour that universities / colleges conduct M.Ed. examination annually.
2. It was found from the analysed data that in 67% cases the dissertation was made available to the
evaluator well in advance and 33% of responses reveal that the dissertation was given to evaluator at the
time of presentation / viva voce only.
3. It was found that in 65% of the institutes the students submit only print copy of dissertation to
department, 35% students submit print copy of dissertation along with a soft copy form to the department.
4. Regarding outcome of schedule of submission of dissertation in different institutes it was found that
65% submitted dissertation before final examination, 27% responses claimed that in there universities
submission schedule was after final examinations & in 6% responses it was found that schedule of
submission was during/ after annual examination and 2% responses mentioned submissions were after
annual examination. Three months’ time duration was reportedly given to the students to submit their
dissertation.
5. 82% respondents asserted that the evaluation of the dissertation was done by examiner external to the
institute and 12% respondents revealed that internal examiner (guide) evaluates the dissertation, and 6%
mentioned that evaluation of dissertation is made by external but from within the institute along guide of
every student.
6. In the context of evaluation of dissertation it was found that 4% responses claimed the dissertation is
evaluated on the basis of submitted thesis only, 74% responses show that evaluation of dissertation is on
the basis of submitted thesis with one to one viva-voce, 22% responses show that evaluation is on the
basis of viva voce with presentation along with submitted thesis.
7. By analysis of responses to the item about oral presentation of dissertation, it was found that 70%
respondents claimed that students made oral presentations only before the viva vice board/committee,
20% respondents said that students made presentation, not open for discussion and 10% mentioned that
presentations were open for all including other students.
8. On analysis of the responses, it was found that 9% of respondents reveal that there is a policy for the
universities to reject the dissertation at the time of evaluation if found incomplete in any manner, 33%
responses show that there are provision to modify/resubmission of the dissertation within limited time
given by departmental committee, 47% respondents response that there was no such provision in
departmental policy and 11% responses mentioned that sometimes the evaluator suggests the student
some modification/resubmission the dissertation but it was not mentioned in departmental policy.
References
 Buch, M.B. (Ed) (1974). A Survey of Research in Education. Baroda; Center of Advance Studies
in Education.

ISSN : 0972-7175
Vol.: XXIV, No. :12(II), 2021– 2022 24
 Buch, M.B. (Ed) (1979). Second Survey of Research in Education, Board; Society of Educational
Research and Development.
 Buch, M.B. (Ed) (1987).Third Survey of Research of Education, New Delhi: NCERT.
 Buch, M.B. (Ed) (1991). Fourth Survey of Research in Education, New Delhi: NCERT.
 Buch, M.B. (Ed) (1997). Fifth Survey of Research in Education, New Delhi: NCERT.
 Buch, M.B. (Ed) (1997). Sixth Survey of Research in Education, New Delhi:
 NCERT.
 Buch, M.B. (Ed) (1888-92). Fifth Survey of Educational Research. Volume1
 Buch, M.B. (EB): (1978-1983). Third Survey of Research in Education National Council for
Education Research and Training, New Delhi,
 Buch, M.B. (EB): (1988-92). Fifth Survey of Research in Education National Council for
Education Research and Training, New Delhi,
 Chandra & Sharma (2004). Research in Education (p-517).New Delhi: Atlantic publishers and
distributors
 Dash namita, (1987).An Evaluation Study of B.Ed. Viva-Voce Examination.Unpublished M.Ed.
dissertation, D.A.V.V, Indore.
 Hooda, R.C. (1991). Evaluation of Teacher Education Curriculum- A factorial view, Rohtak:
Manthan Publications.
 Ives, (et.al.) (2005).studies in higher education, v30 n5 p535-555
 Khosla, D.N. innovated Practices in Teacher Education in India at Secondary Level Vol. II New
 Koul, L. (1997). Methodology of Educational Research. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House Pvt.
Ltd.
 Khosla, D.N. innovated Practices in Teacher Education in India at Secondary Level Vol. III New
 Koul, Lokesh, (1982). Methodology of Educational Research. New Delhi: Vani Educational
Books.
 Mouly, G.J. (1964). The Science of Education Research. New Delhi: Eurocia publishing house
ltd.
 Mohanty, (1991). Background and Academic Productivity of University Teachers. Unpublished
M.Phil. Thesis, D.A.V.V, Indore
 Nandy,K.M.(1996). An Evaluation of During Presentation Discussion and Past Presentation
Discussion in Peer, Teaching Sessions, in B.Ed. Activity Progress. Unpublished M.Ed.
dissertation, D.A.V.V, Indore.
 (NCERT), (1971). Department of Teacher Education, National Institute of Education Delhi.
 (NCERT), (1973). Department of Teacher Education, National Institute of Education Delhi
 Prakash, (2002).Curriculum Evaluation .Issues and Strategies in NCERT & UNIESO
 Recommendation of UGC Curriculum Development Committee on Education March,
2001/pdf/20037/008/

Dr. mohd arif hussain bhat

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Dr. mohd arif hussain bhat

Similar to Dr. mohd arif hussain bhat (20)

More from DrAarifHussainBhat

More from DrAarifHussainBhat (11)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Dr. mohd arif hussain bhat