Creating Postgraduate Collaborations › Forums › CPC Supervision Development Course › Module 1 › Module 1, Session 3: Models of supervision
Tagged: models of supervision
-
AuthorPosts
-
Thank you very much for your presentation Marjolein. My take on the models of supervision is as follows:
What, in your view, would the roles and responsibilities of the supervisor be within each of the models below?
1. Individual, one-on-one supervision: My view on this question is that the supervisor should, guide, mentor, advise and support the student throughout the journey. It requires a supervisor to dig deep into his/her creativity to make sure that the whole process is learner-centred. Its shortcoming would be when a supervisor does not make time to critically assess the student’s work because the student will feel stuck and frustrated. Also, when a supervisor is not willing to acknowledge his/her weaknesses in certain areas of research and creates confusion and doubt for students. Students are very good at judging someone who is presenting something they know and something they don’t. In this case, a supervisor must devise means to ensure that students receive the best guidance throughout their project.2. Co-supervision is a good way of bringing different expertise into one thesis. This is beneficial for supervisors and students. Supervisors can learn from one another while the student is learning from both supervisors. However, it may not be beneficial if there is no mutual respect between the supervisors. Also, it can delay the student if one of the supervisors is not promptly giving feedback. As Christopher nicely puts it, “When there are ideological conflicts between the two supervisors and as such, the candidate becomes just an object in the supremacy contest of the two experts”. Emphasis is that it is not about the supervisors, it is about guiding the student.
3. Panel supervision, where each person in the panel has a particular role: I think when roles are clearly defined, this model can work well. It can create a good competition where everyone will bring their best game and students may benefit from a team of expert. It would work well when there is good communication among the supervisors. However, it may be difficult to create cohesion within the projects and having too many people working on the same project may cause a conflict of ideas resulting in delays. This is just my thought, I have never been involved in panel supervision.
4. I have no experience in project supervision.
5. Cohort supervision, where groups who enter the programme in a particular year work through the research stages together. I think this model is very good especially at the beginning of the research. It saves time and allows students to learn from each other. I used it with my students before the lockdown. We scheduled weekly meetings and I attended to them individually when they submitted the piece of work they have done.
How might the model of supervision impact on the following stages of the research process?
• Development of research design: Research design is the heart of the research work. It has to be done with utmost clarity and diligence. One-on-one supervision might have a negative impact on this stage if the supervisor is not familiar with the research design chosen by the student. Panel supervision would also have a negative impact given that it would be difficult for many supervisors to agree on a certain research design. I imagine that each supervisor would want to advance the research design which he/she is familiar with. Co-supervision would have a positive impact in this regard.• Securing funding: I think one-on-one supervision would have a positive impact on securing funding because there would be no responsibility-shifting. As the only supervisor, you know that the student depends on you to get that funding. Co-supervision can also have a positive impact on securing funding because two strong recommendations would work in the student’s favour.
• Feedback on writing: I think all models can have a positive impact on feedback. Panel supervision may have a positive impact on giving prompt feedback because no supervisor will want to appear as lazy. But this may also be a lot to take in from the side of the students. It may take a while for students to get their heads around what each supervisor’s comment. Co-supervision can also have a positive impact for the same reason as the panel. One-on-one can go either way depending on the supervisor.
• Providing subject matter expertise: All models can work well.• Quality assurance and compliance: All models can have a positive effect. No supervisor wants to be associated with low quality work. It is in the duty of all the supervisors to ensure quality and compliance. If this is not done, it tarnishes the name of the institution.
• Monitoring progress: This is the core duty of the supervisor regardless of the model. However, I think one-on-one supervision has a more positive impact in this regard.
• Reporting on progress: I think one-on-one is prompt in reporting on progress because lack of progress also reflex on you as the supervisor.
• Selecting examiners: One-one one supervision might be biased on selection of examiners. I think all other supervision models can result in a more objective selection of examiners.The videos are quite enlightening.
Co-supervision is best achieved in a cohort scenario. The focus is often the weak and strong students. But supervisors can also be weak in an area say statistical methods. Working as a team provides an avenue for the student to benefit from other expertise and the supervisor also learns!
I feel we should promote cohort supervision if we are to enhance the completion rates especially at PhD level.
Today I heard a panelist in a Viva say ‘It should not be easy…let her go back to the field”. I was shocked but on reflection I remember that the examiner went through a very insensitive panel in her Viva. The things we do as examiners/supervisors determine what we create as academics. Cohorts would militate against such negative experiences
The supervision models highlighted in the presentations include the following situations: individual supervision, team supervision, co-supervision, panel supervision, project supervision, cohort supervision and blended group supervision.
In my opinion, individual supervision is one of the most easiest way of handling supervision as the supervisor. The process of guiding and mentoring the students through research is per their individual level of their competencies. One can move through the introduction, literature review, methodology, results and discussion and summary conclusion phases of the thesis at their designated agreed pace. The demerits is the rigidity and non diversity of the input on the postgraduate student work. There can be a monotony on the process and boredom.
In co-supervision the lines of thought may diverge and the methodology, results and discussion might bring in tag and pull between the supervisors in the work. In the conceptualization of the study there might be conflict arising from measurement of variables which might lead to lags in the work. In case of no convergence when results and discussion comes in the supervisors may disagree on the rigour of the work hence confusing the student more. The student may also be siding with one supervisor and takes one of the supervisor as the ‘enemy of progress’.
Team, cohort, panel and blended group are the more the merrier type of situations. The conceptualization of the study might be a headache and consensus between the participants might comes after a lot of soreness. The methodology and results of the study might be areas of interest which can strengthened in these situations, because members are reach in diversity and students can obtained very rich input in their work.
What is my preferred model? i would chose the co-supervision and cohort supervision. Co-supervision is my best choice the topic of thesis can be conceptualized with little back and forth. Cohort supervision would be quite rich form where I have more students and using at the early stages of developing their thesis proposals.
The supervision models highlighted in the presentations include the following situations: individual supervision, team supervision, co-supervision, panel supervision, project supervision, cohort supervision and blended group supervision.
In my opinion, individual supervision is one of the most easiest way of handling supervision as the supervisor. The process of guiding and mentoring the students through research is per their individual level of their competencies. One can move through the introduction, literature review, methodology, results and discussion and summary conclusion phases of the thesis at their designated agreed pace. The demerits is the rigidity and non diversity of the input on the postgraduate student work. There can be a monotony on the process and boredom.
In co-supervision the lines of thought may diverge and the methodology, results and discussion might bring in tag and pull between the supervisors in the work. In the conceptualization of the study there might be conflict arising from measurement of variables which might lead to lags in the work. In case of no convergence when results and discussion comes in the supervisors may disagree on the rigour of the work hence confusing the student more. The student may also be siding with one supervisor and takes one of the supervisor as the ‘enemy of progress’.
Team, cohort, panel and blended group are the more the merrier type of situations. The conceptualization of the study might be a headache and consensus between the participants might comes after a lot of soreness. The methodology and results of the study might be areas of interest which can strengthened in these situations, because members are reach in diversity and students can obtained very rich input in their work.
What is my preferred model? i would chose the co-supervision and cohort supervision. Co-supervision is my best choice the topic of thesis can be coneptualized mwith little back and forth. Cohort supervision would be quite rich form where I have more students and using at the early stages of developing their thesis proposals.
It is interesting to ponder the different roles a supervisor can play. Of course, these change over time as a student develops but can also be situational depending on what the student needs. At times, my supervisor would crack the whip and lay out clear paths for me; at others, she was a close reader and critic; at others a friend with a sympathetic ear. It’s important to remain observant to what the student needs at any particular time.
Each of the various models of supervision can be useful depending on the prevailing situation and the nature of discipline. It left me thinking if it is appropriate to recommend to an institution to adopt the different models that the various disciplines find appropriate rather than strictly focusing on a specific model for the institution.
The models of supervision can impact every level of the research process. Co-supervision is the model of supervision that I have experienced. The isolation as a student can be overwhelming, making the experience a stressful one. I would like to experience panel or project supervision In instances where one supervisor takes long to respond to the student and only sends his/her feedback after two or more corrections have been done, this can seriously affect students progress.
The models of supervision can impact every level of the research process. Co-supervision is the model of supervision that I have experienced. The isolation as a student can be overwhelming, making the experience a stressful one. I would like to experience panel or project supervision. In instances where one supervisor takes long to respond to the student and only sends his/her feedback after two or more corrections have been done, this can seriously affect students progress.
That was very informative (will go through it again with audio access). We have many postgraduate students and have been thinking through how to effectively supervise them with limited faculty. We hope to introduce panel supervision in an upcoming multidisciplinary Masters and PhD. Application of Cohort supervision is a thought. I am yet to read through the publication on this but am highly motivated to do so.
We usually co-supervise and there are all the power relations issues arising a lot of the time. More often than not it ends up as a one-on-one supervision. It would be great to hear others experiences on using panel, project and cohort supervision.Dear Colleagues,
I have been reading the messages posted to the forum with much interest and learning a lot about the differences in our contexts and the similarities in the challenges we face. I’d like to pick up on some of the forum messages about module 1, session 3, the different models of supervision.
In South Africa, by far the dominant approach in all of the Humanities and Social Sciences (which includes Law, Education and Commerce) rely on the one-on-one or co-supervision models. This can be seen in part to be part of our colonial legacy as this model is also known as the ‘Master-Apprentice’ or ‘Oxbridge tutorial model’, emerging as it did from Oxford and Cambridge (and other places). I am not opposed to this model but think our reliance on it is problematic as it can be a very lonely journey that suggests that knowledge is made individually rather than collaboratively. Many national reports on doctoral education in South Africa have argued that our reliance on this model is not ‘efficient’ (ASSAf 2010, Cloete et al 2015).
Christopher pointed out in his forum post that the one-on-one supervision requires the supervisor to be knowledgeable about all aspects of the study – the literature on the phenomenon, the methodology and so on. Nwabisa points out that supervisors using this model need to be willing to point out where they have shortfalls (and many supervisors fail to do this). Amos joins Christopher in pointing out that if there is a problematic power imbalance, this one-on-one model can exacerbate it. Kefa wrote of the multiple demands students bring to the postgraduate journey and again, in my view, the one-on-one model can exacerbate this burden.
I see co-supervision as an extension of the one-on-one model. It certainly allows for another sounding board and the supervisor is not so alone in the process, though as Susan and others pointed out this only works if the co-supervisors are professional and collegial in their relationship. As Damianna points out, when a co-supervision works well, it can be a really great opportunity for peer learning. But co-supervision doesn’t necessarily provide the student with intellectual companionship. Scholastica discussed in her forum post how this model can lead to boredom. Kezia wrote of delays in feedback that can be characteristic of this model – we’ll be dealing with issues of feedback in Module 3.
As Marjorlein’s presentation so clearly showed, in the end the model of supervision depends on the context – this includes the nature of the research project, the student herself and more. As Esther and Shonisani pointed out in their forum messages, each model brings strengths and weaknesses. Mathew wrote about the role of disciplinary norms in the use of particular models. Certainly, the natural sciences (and in particular laboratory research) relies heavily on project teams.
George points to the higher completion rates of cohort and project models of postgraduate education. Interestingly, in my own field, using project teams has not made completion times any faster but it has greatly reduced the drop-out. I think when you are part of a whole supportive team, you have more assistance to keep going through the hard times. I’ve faced some concerns from colleagues when we first introduced project teams as they had the view that every student needed to identify their own topic and find their own methods. I think there is a confusion between individual product in the form of a sole authored thesis and an individual process, which I think is at odds with the demands for collaborative knowledge sharing.
I really enjoyed Marjolein’s narrated PowerPoint in which she engages with many of these issues – if you haven’t yet watched it please do so now. And you can find more materials on this issue here: http://postgradenvironments.com/2017/02/24/pg-studies-project-teams/
Hope you’re all enjoying the course…
SiouxGreat presentation and indeed an eye opener.Have mostly engaged co-supervision.
Thank youI personally have had experience with individual and co supervision. The strength with individual supervision is that it offers platform for one on one engagement,and thus provides room to flexibility in the supervision process. It also reduces tension likely to occur in co supervision,especially when the supervisors are not reading from the same script.The disadvantage is that the supervisor may have overwhelming control over the research work,thus compromise the integrity of research process.Through observation,some supervisors may control the research work from conceptualization,formulation and even report writing such that the students effort is quite minimal. However,in co supervision,there is room to check each other such that the student identifies with the work more.The only challenge would occur if one of the supervisors has a condescending character and is academically prejudicial to the other.In such circumstances,the student suffers.
I find a blend of co supervision and cohort to be very ideal.This is because the student /candidate is quite an active participant.
Though I have no experience applying group supervision I would prefer it particularly where we have a group of students and a group of supervisors working on a given research topic. The supervisors could be from varying fields or even the same field of study. The supervisors would bring into the research process a diverse expertise and ways of tackling a problem. This brings into the process the intensity of knowledge acquisition required at this level of studies. Usually, such a group of researchers is highly likely to advance a research question that can attract funding.
In such a setup, students are less likely to run the risk of being lonely, disillusioned or unmotivated because they have formed a community to support each other. Rates of completion are bound to increase. At the group level, it is easier to ensure that the set objectives are met at the required time. Group dynamics ensure that group members watch out for each other so that monitoring and reporting on progress will be taken care of by the group rules. It is highly unlikely that all members of a group who set out to meet an objective all fail to do so.University postgraduate supervisors take full cognizance that students mentoring is critical but enjoys a mixed reputation in the various faculties. Some faculty members perceive mentoring as a role for other people. Agreeably, the lack of, or inadequate mentoring contributes to exclusion in postgraduate studies, particularly the female gender. Most universities in Kenya have no tradition of mentoring, and faculty members tend to be overworked and have little time to give personal attention to students. Many seek additional employment outside the university in order to make ends meet. The small number of female academics means that there are few female role models for students. At the same time male academics may often hesitate to mentor or work collaboratively with female colleagues and students for fear of being seen as having sexual relationships with them. In some cases, senior male members are reluctant to act as mentors for junior women in the faculty. In the absence of a mentoring culture in the universities, some consider it inappropriate for an older man to mentor young women. This contributes to women having fewer contacts than men from within and without their institutions. In part, this makes them less likely to be exposed to appropriate further training or conferences and, thus end up having fewer ties to other professionals working in own areas of interest. Feedback from former female postgraduate students indicate that although mentoring is an important mechanism for introducing students and faculty members into academic life, it can have a deleterious effects for women if the culture into which they are being mentored is unremittingly patriarchal.
Models of supervision made me wants to conceptualize the way of I supervise. As supervisors, we meet students with different abilities and you get to know them once you start working. My preferred supervision style is intervision sessions- I think it allows the supervisor to know the students prior understanding of the knowledge and their capabilities, to be able to determine what they can do to help the students to achieve more. As a supervisor, you will be able to guide the students learning process through setting up tasks to be completed at in a given time and they will know what is expected from them during meeting sessions. In a way, you are scaffolding their activities. This helps the students not to be all over the place and focus on one task at the time. If you have many students you can have these sessions as a group where all can present their progress to their peers and learn from each other, then the supervisor gives them feedback.
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Module 1’ is closed to new topics and replies.