HIGHER EDUCATION THESIS SUPERVISION - A NEW, HYBRID SUPERVISORY MODEL

HIGHER EDUCATION THESIS SUPERVISION - A NEW, HYBRID SUPERVISORY MODEL

A. Adlemo (2022).  HIGHER EDUCATION THESIS SUPERVISION - A NEW, HYBRID SUPERVISORY MODEL. 160-173.

One of the final courses, if not the last course at university level in Sweden, and especially within the engineering programs, is a thesis course where the students demonstrate their accumulated knowledge and skills. One, or sometimes two students, identifies a topic of interest within his/her main field of study and is guided through the process by a supervisor. Preferably the supervisor has a lot of experience, both within the main field of study and as a thesis supervisor. Many times, however, the latter is not always the case. Hence, some form of recording of the supervisory process would be of importance, to be able to assess the supervisory competence of the supervisor. Through this recording, potential weak supervisory spots can be identified, and a special focus could be put on these. In literature several supervisory models have been proposed over the years. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate, through a case study, how three of these models can be successfully combined to a hybrid model around the supervisory process building on grounded theory. A combination of the three models together identifies the individual supervisory process of a thesis supervisor. An analysis is then performed, and weak spots in the supervisory process of a novice supervisor can thus be identified and addressed. The results presented in this paper are based on a case where an experienced thesis supervisor was observed during a supervisory session. Hence, the case forms a baseline of what a “good” supervisory session looks like. By applying the hybrid supervisory model on a novice thesis supervisor, possible weaknesses in the process can be identified. As both students and teachers are involved in a one-to-one teaching-learning activity during the thesis process, CDIO standards such as number 8 (active learning) is important from the students’ point-of-view, but especially standard number 10 (enhancement of faculty teaching competence) is of high importance as the competence of the novice supervisor, or the lack thereof, becomes evident and can be appropriately addressed through especially designed activities.

Authors (New): 
Anders Adlemo
Pages: 
160-173
Affiliations: 
Jönköping University, Sweden
Keywords: 
Student attitude change
Supervisory dialogue
Supervisory model
Supervisory management styles
Thesis supervision
CDIO Standard 8
CDIO Standard 10
Year: 
2022
Reference: 
Adams, V., Beasley, C., Gill, J., Rowntree, M. & Ward, M. H. (2015). Women supervising and writing doctoral theses: Walking on the grass, Lexington Books.: 
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.: 
Aronson, E., Wilson, T.D. & Akert, R.M. (2010). Social psychology, 7th Ed., New Jersey: Upper Saddle River, Pearson.: 
Ellis, R. (2008), Understanding second language acquisition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.: 
Gatfield, T. (2005). An investigation into PhD supervisory management styles: Development of a dynamic conceptual model and its managerial implications. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(3), 311-325.: 
Gatfield, T. & Alpert, F. (2002). The supervisory management styles model, Annual International Conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA), Perth, Australia: HERDSA, 263-273.: 
Glaser, B.G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.: 
Hallberg, H., Hjort, V., Löndahl, J., Magnusson, M. & Törmänen, M. (2012). Supervisor roles and role models, Project Report, Docent Course at LTH – Fall 2012, Faculty of Engineering, Lund University, 13 pages.: 
Kiley, M. & Wisker, G. (2009). Threshold concepts in research education and evidence of threshold crossing, Higher Education Research & Development, 28(4), 431-441.: 
Love, A. & Street, A. (1998). Quality in postgraduate research: Managing the new agenda, in M. Kiley and G. Mullins (eds.), University of Adelaide: Advisory Centre for University Education, p. 155.: 
Mejtoft, T. & Vesterberg, J. (2017). Integration of generic skills in engineering education: increased student engagement using a CDIO approach. In The 13th International CDIO Conference, Calgary, Canada, June 18-22, 2017, 386-395.: 
Meyer, J. & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practicing within the disciplines, Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, 412-424.: 
Philips. E. & Pugh, D. (1994). How to get a PhD, 2nd ed., Open University Press, Buckingham, U.K.: 
Reichertz, J. (2007). Abduction: The logic of discovery of grounded theory, in A. Bryant and K. Charmaz (eds). The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory. London: Sage.: 
Tynjälä. P. (2001), Writing as a learning tool, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA, U.S.A.: 
Wisker, G. (2012). The good supervisor, Palgrave Macmillan, NY, U.S.A.: 
Wisker, G. & Kiley, M. (2018). Helping students demonstrate mastery of doctoral threshold concepts, in Susan Carter and Deborah Laurs (eds.), Developing Research Writing - A Handbook for Supervisors and Advisors, Routledge, Abingdon, United Kingdom, 173-177.: 
Go to top