Volume 5, Issue 6, November 2016, Pages: 142-146
Received: Oct. 15, 2016;
Accepted: Oct. 26, 2016;
Published: Nov. 15, 2016
Views 3528 Downloads 89
Lianhong Ding, School of Information, Beijing Wuzi University, Beijing, China
Zhaozhe Cui, School of Logistics Engineering, School of Information, Beijing Wuzi University, Beijing, China
How to evaluate the quality of a dissertation for master degree is important for the postgraduate education. The evaluation of dissertation is a complex assignment. The evaluation process in certain extent is accompanied by randomness, fuzziness, uncertainty/intangible and instability. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a multiple criteria decision-aiding method developed by Saaty. In this paper a quantitative method for the evaluation of dissertation is put forward based on the analytic hierarchy process. Multiple evaluation criteria and sub-criteria are organized into a hierarchy. The relative importance of these criteria is accessed and different weight values are assigned to evaluation criteria. As the result, the evaluation process of the dissertation for master degree becomes more simple and convenient. The evaluation result is more objective and exact.
Quality Evaluation Method of Dissertation for Master Degree Based on AHP, Education Journal.
Vol. 5, No. 6,
2016, pp. 142-146.
Copyright © 2016 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Harvey Woolf. Assessment criteria: reflections on current practices [J]. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2004, 29: 4, 479-493.
Saaty TL. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 1990, 48 (1): 9-26.
Moon J, Moon J. The Module and Programme Development Handbook- a practical resource for linking levels, learning outcomes & assessment [J]. University of New South, 2002, Selwood Printing Ltd. Great Briton.
Lovitts B E. How to Grade a Dissertation [J]. Academe, 2005, 91 (6): 18-23.
Frank Webster, David Pepper, Alan Jenkins. Assessing the Undergraduate Dissertation [J]. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2010, 25 (1): 71-80.
Arefi M, Heidari M, Morkani G S, et al. Application of Kano Model in Higher Education Quality Improvement: Study Master's Degree Program of Educational Psychology in State Universities of Tehran [J]. World Applied Sciences Journal, 2012, 17 (3).
Harvey Woolf. Assessment criteria: reflections on current practices [J]. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2004, 29 (4): 479-493.
Brits H, Bezuidenhout J, Steinberg W J, et al. An evaluation of the assessment tool used for extensive mini-dissertations in the Master's Degree in Family Medicine, University of the Free State [J]. Official Journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/primary Care, 2014, 56 (2): 125-133.
Freeman R and Lewis R. Planning and implementing assessment, Routledge Falmer, Talylor & Francis group, 1998, London, and New York.
Kim H S. Thesis assessment element weighting and quantitative nature of criterion [J]. Thesis Assessment Criteria, 2009.
Khambadkone A, Kassim A A, Samudra G. Design of Assessment for Project modules with Dissertation Type of session [J]. 2002.
Ji, Xuhua, and C. Pattinson. "AHP Implemented Security Assessment and Security Weight Verification." IEEE Second International Conference on Social Computing IEEE Computer Society, 2010: 1026-1031.
Lirn T C, Thanopoulou H A, Beynon M J, et al. An Application of AHP on Transhipment Port Selection: A Global Perspective [M]// Port Management. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2015.
Al-Harbi A S. Application of the AHP in project management [J]. International Journal of Project Management, 2001, 19 (1): 19-27.
Power, D. J. Decision Support Systems Glossary, DSSResources.COM, World Wide Web, http://DSSResources.COM/glossary/, 2007. Last updated June 9, 2009.