Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 370–388 | Cite as

Postgraduate students’ level of dependence on supervisors in coping with academic matters and using digital tools

  • Gurnam Kaur Sidhu
  • Sarjit Kaur
  • Chan Yuen Fook
Article
First Online:

Abstract

In order to build and empower human capital development, the Malaysian Ministry of Education devised a plan referred to as “MyBrain15”. Under this plan, Malaysia hopes to produce a total of 60,000 doctoral degree holders by 2023. However, high attrition and low completion rates among postgraduate students to date have hindered the noble aspiration. Among the factors that have contributed to this are postgraduate supervision in terms of student autonomy and students’ limitations in terms of knowledge and twenty first century skills such as critical thinking and lifelong learning. This paper aims to examine postgraduate students’ perceptions of their level of dependence on supervisors in relation to the use of digital tools and academic matters pertaining to motivational support, writing a proposal, collecting and analysing data and writing the final report. This exploratory mixed-methods study involved 132 postgraduate students and six lecturers from the largest public university in Malaysia. Data were collected through the use of a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. The findings show that students’ level of dependence on supervisors for academic matters was much higher compared to dependence on using digital tools. In terms of digital tools, students articulated dependence on supervisors in aspects such as data analysis, data visualization and data management tools. With regard to academic study, students’ dependence on supervisors was highest at the proposal stage but reduced at the data collection and data analysis stages. Nevertheless, their dependence again increased at the final writing stages. The findings of the study suggest that postgraduate students lack autonomy for lifelong learning and hence appropriate steps need to be taken to improve the quality of postgraduate supervision in the university.

Keywords

Postgraduate students Digital tools Lifelong learning Dependence Autonomy Supervisors 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper presents part of the findings of a main research study that was funded by the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS) under the Ministry of Education, Malaysia and Universiti Teknologi MARA.

Compliance with Ethical standards

All authors hereby certify that they have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for the content and this paper has not been published before and is not under consideration for publication anywhere else.

References

  1. Azevedo, R., & Jacobson, M. (2008). Advances in scaffolding learning with hypertext and hypermedia: A summary and critical analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(1), 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buck, S. (2012). 12 Things students should never do on social media. Mashable; September 4, 2012. Retrieved from http://mashable.com/2012/09/04/students-social-media-warnings/.
  4. Ciliska, D. (2005). Educating for evidence based practice. Journal of Professional Nursing, 21(6), 345–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrission, K. (2007). Research methods in education (7th ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Cottrell, S. (2008). The study skills handbook (3rd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  7. Cryer, P. (2006). The research student’s guide to success. New York: McGraw-Hill International.Google Scholar
  8. Delamont, S., Parry, O., & Atkinson, P. (1998). Creating a delicate balance: The doctoral supervisor’s dilemmas. Teaching in Higher Education, 3(2), 157–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Denecke, D. & Frasier, H. (2005). Ph.D. completion project: Preliminary results from baseline data. Council of Graduate Schools Communicator, vol. 39, pp. 1–2, 7–8.Google Scholar
  10. Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (1999). The doctorate: Talking about the degree. Sydney: University of Western Sydney.Google Scholar
  11. Downes, S. (2005). E-learning 2.0, Downes.ca. Retrieved on 18 December 2015 from http://elearnmag.acm.org/featured.cfm?aid=1104968.
  12. European Parliament and the Council. (2006). Recommendation of the European parliament and of the council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning. Official Journal of the European Union, L394/310.Google Scholar
  13. Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved on 20 November 2015 from http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework.
  14. Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Goldberg, R., Dixon, A., & Wolf, C. P. (2012). Facilitating effective triadic counseling supervision: An adapted model for an underutilized supervision approach. The Clinical Supervisor, 31, 42–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gourlay, R. & Oliver, M (2014). Developing digital literacies. Retrieved on 12 July 2015 from https://www.jisc.ac.uk/full-guide/developing-digital-literacies.
  17. Grant, B. (2003). Mapping the pleasures and risks of supervision. Discourse, 24, 175–190.Google Scholar
  18. Hall, M., Nix, I., & Baker, K. (2013). Student experiences and perceptions of digital literacy skills development: Engaging learners by design? Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 11(3), 207–225.Google Scholar
  19. Ilomäki, L. (2008). The effects of ICT on school: Teachers’ and students’ perspectives. Finland: University of Turku.Google Scholar
  20. Jerald, C. D. (2008). Defining a 21st century education. Center for Public Education Retrieved on 18 December 2015 from http://www.cfsd16.org/public/_century/pdf/Defininga21stCenturyEducation_Jerald_2009.pdf.
  21. Knowles, M. S. (1990). Fostering competence in self-directed learning. In RM Smith & Associates (Ed.), Learning to learn across the life span (pp. 123–136). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  22. Lee, L. F., Sidhu, G. K., & Chan, Y. F. (2014). Exploring 21st century skills among postgraduate students in Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Studies, 123, 130–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mason, R., & Rennie, F. (2008). E-learning and social networking handbook: Resources for higher education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2015). Executive summary: Malaysian education blueprint 2015–2025 (higher education). Perak: Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia.Google Scholar
  25. Pappamihiel, N. E., & Walser, T. M. (2009). English language learners and complexity theory: Why current accountability systems do not measure up. Educational Forum, 73(2), 133–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part 2: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Redecker, C. (2009). Review of learning 2.0 practices: study on the impact of web 2.0 innovations on education and training in Europe. JRC scientific and technical report. Retrieved on 18 December 2015 from http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=2059.
  29. Shopova, T. (2014). Digital literacy of students and its improvement at the university. ERIES Journal, 7(2), 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sidhu, G. K. (2009). Empowering learners through strategy training. In B. Sinclair & S. M. Thang (Eds.), Learner autonomy: Research and practice in Malaysia and Singapore (pp. 106–134). London: Pearson.Google Scholar
  31. Sidhu, G. K, Kaur, S., Chan, Y. F. & Lee, L. F. (2015). Establishing a holistic approach for postgraduate supervision. In Taylor’s 7th Teaching and Learning Conference 2014 Proceedings, pp. 529–545. Springer: Singapore.Google Scholar
  32. Sidhu, G. K., Kaur, S., Chan, Y. F., & Yunus, Farhana. (2013). Postgraduate supervision: Exploring Malaysian students’ experiences. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sidhu, G. K., Kaur, S., Chan, Y. F., & Yunus, Farhana. (2014). Postgraduate supervision: Comparing student perspectives from Malaysia and the United Kingdom. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 123, 151–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sinclair, B., & Thang, S. M. (2009). Learner autonomy: Research and practice in Malaysia and Singapore. London: Pearson.Google Scholar
  35. Ssegawa, J. J., & Rwelamila, P. (2009). The research skill factor as a cause for high postgraduate attrition rate. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 7, 293–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stefanou, C. R., Perencevinch, K. C., DeCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. New York: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversiti Teknologi MARAShah AlamMalaysia
  2. 2.English Language Studies Section, School of HumanitiesUniversiti Sains MalaysiaMindenMalaysia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options