14 August 2026 · 8 min read
An M.Ed. thesis at TU sits between two traps. One is choosing a topic so broad — "quality of education in Nepal" — that no study could answer it. The other is a design that ignores the practical reality of getting into schools, obtaining head teacher permission and collecting data from students who have their own exam calendar. Good education research in Nepal is built around access.
Compare "use of ICT in teaching" with "use of ICT in teaching secondary-level mathematics in community schools of Lalitpur". The second names the level, the subject and the setting, which immediately tells you who your respondents are and how many schools you need. Specificity is not a limitation; it is what makes the study finishable and the findings meaningful.
Whether you use a questionnaire, achievement test, interview guide or observation checklist, it needs validation before use: expert review from your supervisor or subject teachers, then a pilot with a handful of respondents outside your sample. Report the pilot, and for scaled questionnaires report a reliability figure such as Cronbach's alpha. Committees ask about tool validation more often than students expect.
Describe your population, the sampling technique and the practical steps: how you selected schools, how you obtained permission, and how you handled non-response. If you used purposive sampling because only certain schools would grant access, say so and justify it. An honest, well-explained limitation is acceptable; an unexplained convenience sample presented as random is not.
Planning your M.Ed. thesis or stuck on research design, tools or analysis? Assignment Nepal's researchers work with education students at TU — message us on WhatsApp at +977 9768768340.