Students’ Perceptions of Doctoral Supervision: A Study in an Engineering Program in Australia

Q2 Social Sciences
F. Helfer, Steve Drew
{"title":"Students’ Perceptions of Doctoral Supervision: A Study in an Engineering Program in Australia","authors":"F. Helfer, Steve Drew","doi":"10.28945/4368","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim/Purpose: The overall aim of this study was to improve our understanding of engineering student satisfaction and expectations with PhD supervision and their perceptions of the roles in a supervisory relationship.\n\nBackground: Studies on PhD supervision quality are highly valuable, mainly when they provide information on supervision experiences from students’ perspectives, rather than from supervisors’ perspectives. Understanding how PhD students think, their preferences and their perceptions of roles in a supervision process can help enhance the quality of supervision, and consequently, form better researchers and produce better research outcomes. \n\nMethodology: The method employed in this investigation was based on a student survey with scaled and open-ended questions of 30 full-time engineering PhD students from a research institution in Australia.\n\nContribution: Studies that provide a better understanding of how engineering PhD students think and how they expect a supervisory relationship to be are limited. This study can be used to derive recommendations for improving supervisory relationships, particularly in engineering schools and institutions.\n\nFindings: The majority of the students perceived most of the supervisor and student roles in close agreement with the roles described in the literature and existing codes of practice for the supervision of higher degree research students. The main reasons for dissatisfaction with supervision were identified as being the lack of involvement of supervisors in the research projects, particularly in the writing process, and the lack of supervisor’s knowledge in the field being supervised. \n\nRecommendations for Practitioners: It is recommended that the roles of each party in a supervision process be discussed and clarified at the beginning of any PhD candidature to avoid false student expectations. The right supervisory fit should be ensured early in the candidature, and additional supervisors should be added to the team if the expertise of supervisors is deemed insufficient. The use of supervisory panels as opposed to individual supervisions to ensure that responsibilities are shared and to increase the range of advice and support available to each student is highly recommended. \n\nRecommendation for Researchers: It is recommended that this type of research be expanded to other disciplines. It is also recommended that specific actions be taken to improve supervision and these be correlated to satisfaction rates and/or student performance. \n\n","PeriodicalId":53524,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Doctoral Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Doctoral Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.28945/4368","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Aim/Purpose: The overall aim of this study was to improve our understanding of engineering student satisfaction and expectations with PhD supervision and their perceptions of the roles in a supervisory relationship. Background: Studies on PhD supervision quality are highly valuable, mainly when they provide information on supervision experiences from students’ perspectives, rather than from supervisors’ perspectives. Understanding how PhD students think, their preferences and their perceptions of roles in a supervision process can help enhance the quality of supervision, and consequently, form better researchers and produce better research outcomes. Methodology: The method employed in this investigation was based on a student survey with scaled and open-ended questions of 30 full-time engineering PhD students from a research institution in Australia. Contribution: Studies that provide a better understanding of how engineering PhD students think and how they expect a supervisory relationship to be are limited. This study can be used to derive recommendations for improving supervisory relationships, particularly in engineering schools and institutions. Findings: The majority of the students perceived most of the supervisor and student roles in close agreement with the roles described in the literature and existing codes of practice for the supervision of higher degree research students. The main reasons for dissatisfaction with supervision were identified as being the lack of involvement of supervisors in the research projects, particularly in the writing process, and the lack of supervisor’s knowledge in the field being supervised. Recommendations for Practitioners: It is recommended that the roles of each party in a supervision process be discussed and clarified at the beginning of any PhD candidature to avoid false student expectations. The right supervisory fit should be ensured early in the candidature, and additional supervisors should be added to the team if the expertise of supervisors is deemed insufficient. The use of supervisory panels as opposed to individual supervisions to ensure that responsibilities are shared and to increase the range of advice and support available to each student is highly recommended. Recommendation for Researchers: It is recommended that this type of research be expanded to other disciplines. It is also recommended that specific actions be taken to improve supervision and these be correlated to satisfaction rates and/or student performance.
学生对博士指导的认知:一项澳大利亚工程项目的研究
目的/目的:本研究的总体目的是提高我们对工科学生对博士生导师满意度和期望的理解,以及他们对导师关系中角色的看法。背景:对博士生指导质量的研究是非常有价值的,主要是从学生的角度,而不是从导师的角度提供指导经验的信息。了解博士生的想法、他们的偏好和他们对监督过程中角色的看法,有助于提高监督的质量,从而形成更好的研究人员并产生更好的研究成果。研究方法:本研究采用的方法是基于对澳大利亚某研究机构30名全日制工程博士研究生的学生调查,问卷中有规模和开放式问题。贡献:研究提供了更好的理解如何工程博士生的想法和他们如何期望的监督关系是有限的。这项研究可以用来得出改善监督关系的建议,特别是在工程学校和机构中。研究发现:大多数学生认为大多数导师和学生的角色与文献中描述的角色和现有的高等学位研究生监督实践规范非常一致。对监督不满意的主要原因被确定为主管在研究项目中缺乏参与,特别是在写作过程中,以及缺乏主管在被监督领域的知识。对实践者的建议:建议在任何博士候选人开始时讨论和澄清监督过程中各方的角色,以避免错误的学生期望。应该在候选人的早期就确保合适的主管,如果认为主管的专业知识不足,应该在团队中增加额外的主管。强烈建议使用监督小组而不是个人监督,以确保责任分担,并增加每个学生可获得的建议和支持的范围。对研究人员的建议:建议将这类研究扩展到其他学科。还建议采取具体行动来改善监督,并将其与满意度和/或学生表现相关联。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Doctoral Studies
International Journal of Doctoral Studies Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信