Effective Student-centred PhD Supervision from a Social Constructivist Viewpoint

Transcription

1 Effective Student-centred PhD Supervision from a Social Constructivist Viewpoint Daniel Sze Faculty of Pharmacy Introduction In the detailed case study handbook on postgraduate supervision (Kandlbinder & Peseta, 2001), three key elements of research supervision are highlighted as helping to build a co-learning relationship between supervisors and PhD students. These aspects are: establishing clear goals usually framed in terms of fi nding a researchable question; developing partnerships by encouraging students to be refl ective about the skills and abilities needed to complete the project; and, managing the supervisory process through regular meetings and seminar presentations. Writing from a Faculty of Pharmacy perspective I am aware that, unlike such soft disciplines as arts and social sciences, within the hard discipline of Science research topics are normally suggested by the supervisor, and thus the search for a researchable question is not too time-consuming. Thus the second and third aspects mentioned above assume even greater importance. In this case study, I relate these two factors, namely developing partnerships and managing the supervisory process to the educational theory of Social Constructivism. Further, I argue that, from a social constructivist viewpoint, successful supervisor practice, particularly within the Science discipline, is strongly enhanced by the enculturation of higher degree research students into professional communities and clarifi cation of the role of supervisor. Constructivism is an important paradigm in educational psychology and instructional design. It is based on the fundamental assertion that knowledge cannot exist outside our minds (Hendry, Frommer & Walker, 1999) but is rather constructed within individuals through their experience or interrelation with the world. Meaning is viewed as imposed on the world by us rather than existing in the world independently of us (Duffy & Jonnasen, 1991), being rooted in, as well as indexed by, experience (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989). Social constructivism emphasizes that knowledge is socially negotiated within a community (Derry, 1992). Thus human learning is seen not so much as a process of acquiring and constructing that knowledge but as a developmental process characterized by gradually increasing involvement and identifi cation with, and acceptance by, the chosen community of practice. Derry argues that from a social constructivist viewpoint, any theory of learning or instruction that focuses exclusively on the construction 1

2 of symbolic knowledge by individuals is inadequate. As education involves people intentionally structuring materials and time to promote others creation of knowledge and skills, social constructivism holds major implications at all levels of education (Olssen, 1996). PhD supervision is an exceptionally good illustration of the relationship between social constructivism and effective education practice. It is argued that effective PhD supervision implies providing a highly favourable social learning environment during the PhD candidature to enable the research student to construct new knowledge grounded in the discipline s community of practice. While some researchers remark that supervision and the PhD experience are each very individual and differ from one discipline to another (Cullen, Pearson, Saha & Spear, 1994), it is important to identify the key generic processes that enable effective supervision. From a social constructivist perspective, the 53 Interesting ways to supervise (Lewis and Habershaw. 1997) can be ordered under two prime headings. The fi rst heading is enculturation of postgraduate students into the community (Delamont, Atkinson & Parry, 2000) and the second is the clarification of the role of supervisor, particularly at the beginning of the PhD candidature. These two issues play a major role in the successful scholarly development of a researcher. Enculturation of postgraduate students into professional communities Enculturation of the postgraduate student into the professional community implies more than formal learning and assessment in specifi c domains of knowledge. More importantly, it stresses the need for enculturation into the culture of the discipline. The acquisition of the professional culture of a discipline is as important as the knowledge constructed in the learning process of a professional. This culture is normally acquired through the process of enculturation into the specifi c professional communities (Delamont et al., 2000). Practices promoting such enculturation within a PhD supervision context include: cohesive collaborative groups of PhD students and post-doctoral scholars working within the same laboratory this provides an enhanced interactive learning environment compared to similar students working in social and physical isolation; multi-disciplinary research centres often more supportive and productive than single-discipline laboratories; opportunities for PhD students to attend and present at local, national and international meetings and conferences. As a PhD student myself I had the opportunity to attend regular departmental and faculty-wide research seminars and other in-house activities. Two months into my PhD I was fortunate to attend an in-country international conference, accompanied by a senior colleague. The following year my departmental head accompanied me to a major overseas summer school. Both experiences were of great benefit to me as an emerging scholar in that I not only met many young scholars working in similar areas but was also encouraged by the experience to take myself more seriously as a scholar in this fi eld. 2

3 As a supervisor of higher degree research students I continue these practices. To promote enculturation into the professional communities I strongly encourage my students to attend research seminars and in-house activities such as the weekly Journal Club and laboratory meeting. These provide an excellent practice ground for students to ask questions, summarise arguments, speculate upon solutions, and exchange ideas/opinions with other students, post-doctoral scholars and senior academics. I also encourage my students to write and to publish, another important way in which they grow in stature as members of the professional community. Student writing can consist of laboratory log book and research diary entries, summaries of selected articles, and draft papers for submission to related journals. This has the added advantage of developing the habit of writing in students from an early stage, something I lacked in my Master s thesis candidature, and which can be particularly problematic for students from a non-native English speaking background. Clarification of the role of supervisor The role of the supervisor is not to transmit knowledge but rather, as someone with more general expertise and skills in the student s topic area, to scaffold learning experiences of an increasingly complex nature. This enables students to construct a higher level of knowledge on the subject, moving under the expert supervisory guidance from their actual potential development level towards their potential development level in the proximal zone of development (Vygotsky, 1978). Traditional graduate student supervision tended to be based on charismatic authority (Weber, 1948) where supervisors were selected by research students on the basis of their charisma as expert scholar-researcher. Not only is this model inappropriate given our current pedagogical theories, Yeatman (1995) argues further that this traditional model of supervision can no longer work in the current context of a mass higher education system where PhD candidature has become much more frequent. Instead, a more systemic and managed approach to graduate supervision pedagogy is necessary. Inadequate post-graduate supervision has also been cited as a major reason for low submission and completion rates in the United Kingdom (Burgess, Hogan, Pole & Sanders, 1995, p.147). A research project at the Graduate School of the Australian National University, based on an extensive questionnaire sent to supervisors and students, aimed at examining the roles, mutual responsibilities and expectations of supervisors and PhD students and identifi ed critical elements of effective supervisory practice (Cullen et al 1994). The researchers concluded that supervision should be conceived as encompassing a broad view of PhD education which includes more than the one-to-one interaction of student and a supervisor. A key fi nding was that co-supervision (with two or more supervisors) was more effective than working with one supervisor. It was reported that 71% of students supervised by a single supervisor felt satisfi ed by their supervision whereas 92% of students supervised by multiple supervisors and advisors were satisfi ed. The University of Sydney recommends that PhD students be jointly supervised by a chief supervisor and one (or more, up to five) associate supervisors. Here associate supervisors can contribute to the proximal zone of development of the post-graduate students in those particular aspects of the research projects where the chief or principal supervisor may lack the required expertise. As supervisors we need to be aware of a tendency to adopt a supervision practice primarily in reaction to our own adequate or inadequate postgraduate student experience. It is important to develop a comprehensive repertoire of supervisory strategies to suit the needs of different students, which encourages direct open discussion between supervisor and students. Ideas and expectations can be discussed between the supervisor and research students continuously throughout the PhD or Honours candidature. However, it is vital that supervisors encourage their own students to articulate their expectations of the supervisors at the very beginning of their candidature. This allows the students to have more realistic and appropriate expectations of their supervisors and vice versa. Above all students need to know what to do, and how to work with the supervisor. 3

4 Delamont et al (1997) suggests that expectations of the supervisor and supervisee can be aligned by both reading and discussing Chapter 8 of Phillips and Pugh s (1994) How to get a PhD ; and Chapter 6 of Cryer s (1996) The research student s guide to success. In my own practice as a supervisor of PhD and Honours students, I ask them to complete a fairly simple and straight-forward rating scale, originally developed by Moses (1992), which is included in Module 1 of the Development Program for Research Higher Degree Supervision under the title Role Perception Rating Scale. This rating scale (see Appendix A) is an instrument for discussing and negotiating needs and expectations relating to mutual responsibilities. It helps to open up discussion that can be followed by questions such as: How did you choose your supervisor in the fi rst place? ; What do you hope to gain from the process of being supervised? and Is academic writing a problem for you? The changing nature of supervision over the research project has been discussed by Pearson and Brew (2002). As the needs of students change over time, the ground-rules or expectations of the relationship will also need to be renegotiated periodically. Geoff Gurr s Supervisor/Student Alignment Model (Kandlbinder & Peseta, 2001, pp.30-31) is one good example of such a tool. The importance of clarifying different expectations of the role of supervisor at the beginning of the research candidature is clearly evident from the following contrasting comments from two research students: Student A: It was good, except that my supervisor was never around enough to ask questions or read through drafts of my thesis. The fact that he was not around was good because it meant I was able to work independently. However, I wasn t able to go through the drafts of my thesis often, if at all. I feel that this played some role in my marks. I think my supervisor should have made himself more contactable, as in a mobile phone or designated at least 2 hours a week going through the progress of the project. I also wish that my supervisor had socialized with his students more as this would have made it easier to talk to him or approach him about any problems to do with the work. Student B: My supervision has been excellent. Very thorough, and always given in full when I need it, but I have also been able to work independently a lot of the time without interference unless I have wanted it. It has been a very good balance of support and guidance. Conclusion I have found that supervising research students in a happy and productive way has been one of my most satisfying responsibilities in higher education. Watching a fresh graduate become an independent scholar, plan the project, execute the plan with care and thoughtfulness, write up the results and present their first published paper at a conference is a wonderful experience. This is the main reason why I have decided to further build up my own research group, with Honours students, PhD students and post-doctoral scholars, from diverse cultural and learning backgrounds, both local and international. Working with a team of co-workers with beautiful minds turns the daily challenges of tackling the project into an enjoyable group activity. I believe that by following two important mechanisms in higher degree research student supervision: enculturating students into professional communities and clarifying my role as supervisor, I am following best practice in supervisory strategies which aligns well with our current understanding of social constructivism. 4

5 References Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, Burgess, R. G., Hogan, J. V., Pole, C. J. & Sanders, L. (1995). Postgraduate research training in the United Kingdom. In Research training: Present & future, ( ). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Cryer, P. (1996). The research student s guide to success. Buckingham: Open University Press. Cullen D. J., Pearson, M., Saha, L. J. & Spear, R. H. (1994). Establishing effective PhD supervision. Canberra: Higher Education Division, Australian Government Publishing Service. Delamont, S., Atkinson, P. & Parry, O. (1997). Supervising the PhD. A guide to success. Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press. Delamont, S., Atkinson, P. & Parry, O. (2000). The Doctoral Experience. Success and failure in graduate school. London: Falmer Press. Derry, S.J. (1992). Beyond symbolic processing: Expanding horizons for educational psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, Duffy, T. M. & Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Constructivism: New implications for instruction technology? Educational Technology, 31, Hendry, G. D., Frommer, M. & Walker, R. A. (1999). Constructivism and problem-based learning. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 23, Kandlbinder, P. & Peseta, T. (2001). In supervisor s words: an insider s view of postgraduate supervision. Institute for Teaching and Learning, The University of Sydney. Lewis, V. & Habeshaw, S. (1997). 53 Interesting ways to supervise student projects, dissertations and theses. Bristol, UK: Technical and Educational Services. Moses, I. (1992). Supervision: Expectations and standards. In O. Zuber Skerritt (Ed.) First manual for conducting workshops on postgraduate supervision (pp.41-60). Brisbane: The University of Queensland, Tertiary Education Institute. Olssen, M. (1996). Radical constructivism and its failings: Anti-realism and individualism. British Journal of Educational Studies, 44, Pearson, M. & Brew, A. (2002). Research training and supervision development. Studies in Higher Education, 27, Phillips, E. M. & Pugh, D. S. (1994). How to get a PhD, (2nd ed.), Buckingham: Open University Press. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Weber, M. (1948). The social psychology of the world religions. In: H. H. Gerth, & C. W. Mills (Eds.) From Max Weber. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Yeatman, A. (1995). Making supervision relationships accountable. In: A. Lee. A & B. Grenn (Eds.) Postgraduate studies postgraduate pedagogy. The University of Sydney, Centre for Language and literacy. Bionotes Dr Daniel Sze, a current holder of a Cancer Institute NSW Career Development and Support Fellowship is working on the collaborative blood cancer project with the Centenary Institute and Institute of Haematology at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. He started his career as a hospital laboratory scientist and graduated from the Hong Kong Polytechnics University and the University of Hong Kong in 1980s before deciding to move from routine hospital laboratory work into Immunology Research. He obtained a Masters degree in Bristol, UK, and another Masters degree and PhD in Immunology from the University of Birmingham, UK. He arrived in Australia in 1998 and has been the recipient of a number of grants, fellowships and scholarships. Daniel also participates in a radio science program that aims to educate the general public about cancer and science. Daniel has immense interest in medical education and teaching and learning in higher education. He completed a Graduate Certifi cate in Education (Information Technology and Education) and then his third Masters degree in Higher Education at the University of Sydney. He is currently completing his PhD in Higher Education with the Institute of Teaching and Learning at the University of Sydney in the area of student learning research in medical education. 5

6 Appendix A Read each pair of statements listed below. Each expresses a standpoint supervisors/ students may take. You may not agree fully with either of the statements. Therefore, please indicate how closely your position matches a statement and mark it on the scale (5 levels/squares from left to right). For example, if you believe very strongly that supervisors should select the research topic, you d check the square closest to this statement. Topic/course of study 1. It is the supervisor s responsibility to select a promising topic 1. It is the student s responsibility to select a select a promising topic 7. The supervisor should terminate supervision if she or he thinks the project is beyond the student The Thesis 8. The Supervisor should ensure that the Thesis is fi nished not much later than the minimum period 7. The supervisor should support the student right through until the thesis has been submitted, regardless of his/her opinion of the work 8. As long as the student works steadily s/he can take as long as s/he needs to fi nish the work 2. In the end, it is up to the supervisor to decide which theoretical frame of reference is most appropriate 2. Students have a right to choose their own theoretical standpoint even if it confl icts with the supervisor s 9. The supervisor has direct responsibility for the standard of the thesis 9. The supervisor advises only and leaves all decisions concerning content, format and standards to the student 3. The supervisor should direct the student in the development of an appropriate programme of research and study Contact/Involvement 4. Staff-student relationships are purely professional and personal matters should not intrude 5. The supervisor should initiate frequent meetings with the student 6. The supervisor should know at all times at which problems the student is working 3. The supervisor should act mainly as a sounding board for the student s ideas and give advice 4. Close personal relationships are essential for successful supervision 5. It is up to the student to decide when s/he wants meetings with the supervisor 6. Students should have the opportunity to fi nd their own way without having to account for how they spend their time 10. The supervisor should insist on seeing drafts of every section of the thesis in order to review them 11. The supervisor should assist in the actual writing of the thesis if the student has diffi culties 10. It is up to the student to ask for constructive criticism from the supervisor 11. The supervisor should be very wary of contributing too much to the thesis After fi lling in the above form, how would you comment on your previous BSc Honor research project supervision process: 6