Perceptions of postgraduate students on the relationship between thesis development and performance of a supervisor

Sussy Bayona Ore

doi:10.36681/tused.2021.90

Authors

Sussy Bayona Ore UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL MAYOR DE SAN MARCOS https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7133-9106

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2021.90

Keywords:

Supervisor performance, cognitive skills, personal qualities, role function, thesis

Abstract

Although thesis supervision has been widely studied, little is known about supervisors’ performance dimensions and thesis development from a quantitative perspective. For this reason, this research aims to analyse the relationship between thesis development and supervisors’ performances according to the perceptions of postgraduate students. A quantitative research methodology and a Spearman’s rank correlation was used. A survey was administered to 51 postgraduate students from a public university. The results indicated a significant correlation between thesis development and supervisor performance dimensions such as skills, roles, and personal qualities. The academic capacity, knowledge, research experience of supervisor is significant and the supervisors understand the regulations and rules of the supervision process. The supervisors must have knowledge of supervision styles and apply it taking into account the characteristics of the students. A framework of procedures and guidelines for postgraduate supervision must be established to improve the supervision process.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Acker, S., Hill, T. & Black, E. (1994). Thesis supervision in the social sciences: Negotiated or managed? Higher Education, 28(4), 483-499.

Andriopoulou, P. & Prowse, A. (2020), “Towards an effective supervisory relationship in research degree supervision: insights from attachment theory”, Teaching in Higher Education, 25(5), 64866.

Bazrafkan, L., Yousefy, A., Amini, M.et al. (2019). The journey of thesis supervisors from novice to expert: a grounded theory study. BMC Med Educ, 19,320, 1-12.

Bell, J. & Waters, S. (2014). Doing your research project. A guide for first-time researchers. McGraw-Hill Education.

Bayona-Oré, S. & Bazan, C. (2020). Why Students Find It Difficult to Finish their Theses? Journal of Turkish Science Education, 17(4), 591-602.

Davis, D. (2019): The ideal supervisor from the candidate’s perspective: what qualities do students actually want? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 44(9),1220-1232.

Del Rio, M., Diaz-Vasquez, R. & Masid, J. (2017), Satisfaction with the supervision of undergraduate dissertation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(2), 159-172.

Denicolo, P. (2004). Doctoral supervision of colleagues: Peeling off the veneer of satisfaction and competence. Studies in Higher Education, 29(6), 693-707.

Dogan, N. & Bıkmaz, O. (2015). Expectation of students from their thesis supervisor. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 3730-3737.

Fenge, L. (2012). Enhancing the doctoral journey: The role of group supervision in supporting collaborative learning and creativity. Studies in Higher Education, 37(4), 401-414.

Firoz, A., Quamrul, A. & Mohammad, G. (2013). A pilot study on postgraduate supervision. In BSME 5th International Conference on Thermal Engineering. Engineering proceeded, 56, 875-881.

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

Gedamu, A. (2018). TEFL Graduate supervisees' views of their supervisors' supervisory styles and satisfaction with thesis supervision. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 63-74.

Golde, C. (2000). Should I stay or should I go? Student descriptions of the doctoral attrition process. The Review of Higher Education, 23(2), 199-227.

Gray, M. & Crosta, L. (2018). New perspectives in online doctoral supervision: a systematic literature review. Studies in Continuing Education, 1-18. Doi:10.1080/0158037x.2018.1532405

Grealy L., Laurie T. (2019) The ethics of postgraduate supervision: A view from cultural studies. In: Aksikas J., Andrews S., Hedrick D. (eds) Cultural Studies in the Classroom and Beyond. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25393-6_16.

Griffith University (2017) https://intranet.secure.griffith.edu.au/research/griffith-graduate-researchschool/training-and-workshops/expectations-in-supervision-questionnaire.

Guo, L., Fan, H., Xu, Z., Li, J., Chen, T., Zhang, Z., & Yang, K. (2021). Prevalence and changes in depressive symptoms among postgraduate students: A systematic review and meta‐analysis from 1980 to 2020. Stress and Health, 2021, 1-13.

Heath, T. (2002). A quantitative analysis of PhD students' views of supervision. Higher Education Research & Development, 21(1), 41- 53.

Hernández, R. Fernández, C. & Baptista, P. (2014). Metodología de la investigación [Research Methodology]. Mc Graw Hill.

Hodza, F. (2007). Managing the student-supervisor relationship for successful postgraduate supervision: A Sociological Perspective. South African Journal of Higher Education, 21(8), 11551165.

Howells, K., Stafford, K., Guijt, R. & Breadmore, M. (2017). The role of gratitude in enhancing the relationship between doctoral research students and their supervisors. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(6), 621-638.

Jeyaraj, J. (2020). Academic writing needs of postgraduate research students in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 17(2), 1-23.

Jibao, G., Changqing, H. & Hefu, L. (2017). Supervisory styles and graduate student creativity: the mediating roles of creative self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation. Studies in Higher Education, 42(4), 721-742.

Jones, B. J. (2017). Improving the PhD through provision of skills training for postgraduate researchers. In: Williams, A., Casella, J., and Maskel, P. (Eds), Forensic Science Education and Training, pp. 103– 117. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Juntunen, M., & Lehenkari, M. (2021). A narrative literature review process for an academic business research thesis. Studies in higher education, 46(2), 330-342.

Kam, B. (1997). Style and quality in research supervision: The supervisor dependency factor. Higher Education, 34(1), 81-103.

Kaur, S., Sarjit, K., Lim, P. & Chan, Y. (2017). Developing a framework for postgraduate supervision.

G.B. Teh and S.C. Choy (eds.), Empowering 21st Century Learners Through Holistic and Enterprising Learning, Springerlink, 255-267.

Keshavarz, H. & Shekari, M. (2020). Factors affecting topic selection for theses and dissertations in library and information science: A national scale study. Library & Information Science Research, 101052. Doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2020.101052.

Kirkland, M. (2018). Professional doctoral students and the doctoral supervision relationship: negotiating difficulties. Tesis doctoral. School of Education University of Stirling, UK.

Kropf, K. (2018). The Handbook of Urban Morphology. New Jersey. Wiley.

Law 30220 (2014). Diario oficial El Peruano [The Peruvian Official Newspaper], July 9, 52713-527233. http://www.leyes.congreso.gob.pe/Documentos/Leyes/30220.pdf.

Lee, A. (2007). Developing effective supervisors: Concepts of research supervision. South African Journal of Higher Education, 21(4), 680-693.

Lim, A & Øerberg, W. (2017). Active instruments: on the use of university rankings in developing national systems of higher education. Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 1(1), 91-108

MacDonald, R. (1996). The Guardian Master Guide for more effective tutoring. Cambridge Stratford Ltd.

Madueño, M., Márquez, L. & Manig, A. (2020). The engineering professors’ teaching identity formation as university teachers: A process of sociocultural construction. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 17(4), 504-519

Mainhard, T., Rijst, R., Tartwijk, J. & Wubbels, T. (2009). A model for the supervisor–doctoral student relationship. Higher Education, 58, 359-373.

Manathunga, C. (2012). Team’ supervision: New positioning in doctoral education pedagogies. In Lee, A. & Danby, S. (Eds). Reshaping doctoral education: International approaches and pedagogies (pp. 42–55). Routledge.

Mejia, E. (2013). Investigación científica en Educación [Scientific research in Education]. CEPREDIM. Lima.

Muraraneza, C., Mtshali, N., & Bvumbwe, T. (2020). Challenges in postgraduate research supervision in nursing education: Integrative review. Nurse education today, 89, June 2020, 104376.

Muthanna, A. & Alduais, A. (2021) A thematic review on research integrity and research supervision: Relationships, Crises and Critical Messages. J Acad Ethics 19, 95–113.

Nouri J., Larsson K., Saqr M. (2019) Identifying factors for master thesis completion and noncompletion through learning analytics and machine learning. In: Scheffel M., Broisin J., PammerSchindler V., Ioannou A., Schneider J. (eds) Transforming learning with meaningful technologies. EC-TEL 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11722. Springer, Cham.

Ormanci, Ü. (2020). Thematic Content Analysis of Doctoral Theses in STEM Education: Turkey Context. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 17(1), 126-146.

Pérez-Ros, P., Chust-Hernández, P., Ibáñez-Gascó, J., & Martínez-Arnau, F. (2021). An undergraduate thesis training course for faculty reduces variability in student evaluations. Nurse Education Today, 96, 104619.

Phillips, E. & Pugh D (2010). How to get a PhD: A handbook for students and their supervisors. Open University Press

Proctor, D. & Rumbley, L. (2018). The future agenda for internationalization in higher education: Next Generation Insights into Research, Policy, and Practice. Routledge

Renske de Kleijn (2013). Master’s thesis supervision: Feedback, interpersonal relationships, and adaptivity. Doctoral Thesis. Universiteit Utrecht. http://www.dart-europe.eu/full.php?id=1139716

Roach, A., Christensen, B., & Rieger, E. (2019). The essential ingredients of research supervision: A discrete-choice experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111 (7), 1243–1260.

Rodriguez, A., Sanchez, M. & Rojas, B. (2008). Mediation, support and individual learning. Research and Graduate Studies, 23(2), 349-381.

Rosas, K., Flores, D. & Valarino, E. (2006). Rol del Tutor: competencias, condiciones personales y funciones [Rol of the tutor: competences, personal conditions and function]. Investigación y Postgrado, 21(1), 154-185.

Rose, G. (2003). Enhancement of mentor selection using the ideal mentor scale. Research in Higher Education 44, 473–494.

Simon, S. (2014). The supervised as the supervisor. Education + Training, 56(6), 537–550.

Van Biljon, J. & De Villiers, M. (2013). Multiplicity in supervision models: The supervisor's perspective. South African Journal of Higher Education, 27(6), 1443-1463.

Vera, L. & Vera, C. (2015). Performance tutor in the process of accompanying scientific production. TELOS Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Social Sciences, 17(1), 58-74.

Volkert, D., Candela, L., & Bernacki, M. (2018) Student motivation, stressors, and intent to leave nursing doctoral study: a national study using path analysis Nurse Educ. Today, 61, 210-215.

Wanyama, S. B., & Eyamu, S. (2021). Perceived organizational support, graduate research supervision and research completion rate. Employee Relations: The International Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-05-2020-0205

Woolston, C. (2019). PhDs: The tortuous truth. Nature, 575, 403–406.

Yusuf, A. (2018). Factors influencing post graduate students’ choice of research topic in education at Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, Bauchi-Nigeria. Sumerianz Journal of Education, Linguistics and Literature, 1(2), 35–40.

Zaheer, M., & Munir, S. (2020). Research supervision in distance learning: issues and challenges. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 15(1), 131-143.

Zhang, Y. & Hyland, K. (2021). Advice-giving, power and roles in theses supervisions. Journal of Pragmatics, 172, 35-45.

Zuber-Skerrit, O. & Roche, V. (2004). A Constructivist model for evaluating postgraduate supervision: A Case Study. Quality Assurance in Education, 12(2), 82–93.