Major differences in submission practices of bachelor’s theses between faculties

Tämän artikkelin voi lukea myös suomeksi.

There are major differences in the submission practices of bachelor’s theses in different faculties. In some faculties, devising a schedule and keeping to it form one assessment criterion, whereas in others, the submission schedule does not matter in the assessment. The editorial team of Visiiri received a story tip from one physics student, according to whom, in the physics major, a delay in submission lowers the grade of the thesis, even if the delay was discussed beforehand with the thesis supervisor.

Heino Kuuluvainen, a University Instructor in the Physics Unit, says that the purpose of the course-form bachelor’s thesis seminar, which was introduced about six years ago, is to motivate students to submit their bachelor’s theses on schedule. Before, there was a problem with thesis submissions dragging out.

“Because of the course, there is a shared schedule and a shared deadline for students writing their theses”, says Kuuluvainen.

Work was not an adequate reason for individual arrangements

Vilma Kuusisto, a fourth-year physics student, wrote their bachelor’s thesis last Spring. Due to demanding three-shift work and major and minor courses being scheduled for the same period, submitting the thesis within the shared course schedule was not possible.

“I had to go to work then and complete my courses as well, so something had to get cut from my schedule”, says Kuusisto.

Kuusisto informed the persons responsible for the course of the situation immediately at the beginning of the course and asked whether there would be a point reduction, even though the matter was discussed beforehand. They said that it is possible to message the faculty regarding the matter, but that the rules could not really be deviated from. Kuusisto does not know whether the situation would have been different if the reason for the delay had been health-related, but in this case, an opportunity to discuss individual arrangements was not offered.

In the end, Kuusisto submitted their thesis a little short of two months after the submission deadline. As a result, the grade Kuusisto received was one whole grade lower than what it would otherwise have been.

Variation in assessment criteria

In the assessment practices of the Physics Unit, a possible reduction for a delay is made to the mean of the subgrades. The reduction is 0.6–1.8 points depending on how delayed the submission is. The final grade is rounded after the possible point reduction in accordance with rounding standards.

In practice, it is then possible that the final grade of a bachelor’s thesis is two whole grades lower than what it would have been content-wise.

Leena Wilkman, the Head of Unit B of Faculty-level Study Services in the Education and Learning Services, says that, according to their understanding, the assessment practices are more or less identical in several engineering fields. Wilkman says that keeping to a schedule is in one way or another mentioned as one assessment criterion in the assessment criteria of several degree programmes.

Keeping to a schedule is also mentioned in the bachelor’s thesis assessment criteria of the chemistry programme. The student can, however, devise their own schedule with their supervisor.

“There absolutely is variation in these. It is true that keeping to a schedule is not even an assessment criterion in all degree programmes”, says Wilkman.

The purpose of the course reform is to better the support that students receive

Heino Kuuluvainen emphasises that a key motivator in the course reform has been that the support students receive to write their theses is pedagogically improved. In the reformed system, there are scheduled mid-process submissions, thematic workshops, and different types of support available. The goal is to bring together the students who are writing their theses, so that they could also get peer support. In the past, each student has written their thesis independently in accordance with their own schedules.

“We want to serve our students as well as possible. A shared deadline and lowering the grade for a delay in submission are parts of a larger whole”, says Kuuluvainen.

Visiiri had on-background discussions with several physics students, who criticised the inflexible submission schedule. Kuuluvainen has not heard any critique regarding the course reform. Based on the feedback received from students and monitoring course activities, the course reform seems to work as intended, according to Kuuluvainen.

Visiiri was unable to reach representatives of Hiukkanen, the Guild of Science and Engineering, to comment on whether the guild has furthered the matter.