Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Challenges in Collective Academic Supervision: supervisors’ experiences from a Master Programme in Guidance and Counselling

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The idea of peer and group learning is not new in higher education. It has been applied and studied extensively in courses, programmes, and other formal classroom contexts. However, there is not, as yet, a correspondingly large body of research into peer learning in supervision contexts. In this article we address the challenges experienced by supervisors practising Collective Academic Supervision (CAS) as part of a Master Programme in Guidance and Counselling. The data stem from a research and development project and consist of video footage from three collegial development seminars in which five supervisors at master’s level watched and discussed video footage of their own supervision of practices. The article, therefore, adds to existing literature on supervision in higher education by illuminating supervisors’ perspective on collective supervision processes. Our analysis reveals three major challenges experienced by the supervisors: (1) facilitating equal participation within heterogeneous student groups, (2) balancing between providing answers and involving students, (3) identifying and developing the students’ analytical skills. We discuss the practical implications of these challenges and conclude that metacommunication regarding individual expectations and group behaviour should be part of supervisors’ repertoire of strategies when practicing CAS. However, more research is needed regarding supervisors’ dilemmas, roles and responsibilities in collective supervision, as well as modes of interaction between supervisors and students in different study contexts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andersen, & Tom, (1991). The reflecting team: Dialogues and dialogues about the dialogues. New York: Norton & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baltzersen, R. K. (2013). The importance of metacommunication in supervision processes. International Journal of Higher Education, 2(2), 128–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bligh, D. (2000). What’s the point in discussion?. Exeter: Intellect Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., & Lee, A. (2005). ‘Peer learning’ as pedagogic discourse for research education. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 501–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, C. (2008). Towards a pedagogy of supervision in the technology disciplines. Queensland University of Technology. Australia: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caffarella, R., & Barnett, B. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 39–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choy, S., Delahaye, B.L., & Saggers, B. (2014). Developing learning cohorts for postgraduate research degrees. The Australian educational researcher, 1–16. doi: 10.1007/s13384-014-0147-y.

  • Cumming, J. (2009). The doctoral experience in science: Challenging the current orthodoxy. British Educational Research Journal, 35(6), 877–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delamont, S., Atkonson, P., & Parry, O. (2004). Supervising the doctorate—A guide to success ( (2nd ed.). NY: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dempsey, N. (2010). Stimulated recall interviews in ethnography. Qualitative Sociology,. doi:10.1007/s11133-010-9157-x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deuchar, R. (2008). Facilitator, director or critical friend?: Contradiction and congruence in doctoral supervision styles. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(4), 489–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dysthe, O., Samara, A., & Westrheim, K. (2006). Multivoiced supervision of master’s students: A case study of alternative supervision practices in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 299–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eley, A., & Murray, R. (2009). How to be an effective supervisor—Best practice in research student supervision. NY: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, K. (2006). Peer support groups. In C. Denholm & T. Evans (Eds.), Doctorates down under: Keys to successful doctoral study in Australia and New Zealand (pp. 41–49). Camberwell, Victoria: Acer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, S. K. (2007). I heard it through the grapevine”: Doctoral student socialization in chemistry and history. Higher Education,. doi:10.1007/s10734-006-9020-x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, S. K. (2009). Conceptualizing success in doctoral education: Perspectives of faculty in seven disciplines. The Review of Higher Education, 32(3), 383–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govender, K., & Dhunpath, R. (2011) Perspectives in education: The changing face of doctoral education in South Africa [Special Issue 3]. vol. 29, 88–99.

  • Haksever, A. M., & Manisali, E. (2000). Assessing supervision requirements of PhD students. European Journal of Engineering Education, 25(1), 19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handal, G. (2007). Veilederen: Guru eller kritisk venn? In T. Kroksmark & K. Åberg (Eds.), Veiledning i pedagogisk arbeid (pp. 23–33). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, T. (2002). A quantitative analysis of PhD students’ views of supervision. Higher Education Research and Development, 21(1), 41–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornstrup, C.et al.(2008). Team coaching and reflecting teams. Macmann Berg. Assessed 1107 2014 at http://www.taosinstitute.net/Websites/taos/Images/ResourcesManuscripts/Hornstrup-Team_coaching_and_reflecting_teams.pdf.

  • Hoskins, C. M., & Goldberg, A. D. (2005). Doctoral student persistence in counselor education programs: Student-program match. Counselor Education and Supervision, 44(3), 175–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, L., Chalmers, D., & MacDonald, R. (2012). Effective classroom teaching. In L. Hunt & D. Chalmers (Eds.), University teaching in focus. A learning-centred approach (pp. 21–37). Sydney: ACER Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvale, S. (1996). interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A., & Boud, D. (2003). Writing groups, change and academic identity: Research development as local practice. Studies in Higher Education, 28(2), 187–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lillejord, S., & Dysthe, O. (2008). Productive learning spaces—A theoretical discussion based on two cases. Journal of Education and Work,. doi:10.1080/13639080801957154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malfroy, J. (2005). Doctoral supervision, workplace research and the changing pedagogic practices. Higher Education Research and Development, 24(2), 165–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manathunga, C. (2012). Supervisors watching supervisors: The deconstructive possibilities and tensions of team supervision. Australian Universities’ Review, 54(1), 29–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manathunga, C., & Goozée, J. (2007). Challenging the dual assumption of the ‘always/already’ autonomous student and effective supervisor. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(3), 309–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, R. (2003). The doctoral education experience. Diversity and complexity. Canberra: Australian Department of Education Science and Training.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordentoft, H. M., Thomsen, R., & Wichmann-Hansen, G. (2013). Collective academic supervision: A model for participation and learning in higher education. Higher Education, 65(5), 581–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Northedge, A. (2003). Rethinking teaching in the context of diversity. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(1), 17–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, R. (2009). A learning community approach to doctoral education in the social sciences. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(1), 43–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, M. (2005). Framing research on doctoral education in Australia in a global context. Higher Education Research and Development, 24(2), 119–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, M., & Brew, A. (2002). Research training and supervision development. Studies in Higher Education, 27(2), 135–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pole, C. (1998). Joint supervision and the PhD: Safety net or panacea? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(3), 259–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samara, A. (2006). Group supervision in graduate education: A process of supervision skill development and text improvement. Higher Education Research and Development, 25(2), 115–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shacham, M., & Od-Cohen, Y. (2009). Rethinking PhD learning incorporating communities of practice. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(3), 279–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stracke, E. (2010). Undertaking the journey together: Peer learning for a successful and enjoyable PhD experience. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 7(1), 8.

  • Taylor, S., & Beasley, N. (2005). A handbook for doctoral supervisors. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thomsen, R., & Nordentoft, H. M. (2011). Kollektiv Akademisk Vejledning - et bud på en ændret organisering af vejledningen på universitetet. Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift, 7(2), 106–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulriksen, L. (2009). The implied student. Studies in Higher Education, 34(5), 517–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vekkaila, J., Pyhältö, K., Hakkarainen, K., Keskinen, J., & Lonka, K. (2012). Doctoral students’ key learning experiences in the natural sciences. International Journal for Researcher Development, 3(2), 154–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, M., & Thomson, P. (Eds.). (2010). The Routledge doctoral supervisor’s companion—supporting effective research in education and the social sciences. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts, Jacqueline H. (2010). Team supervision of the doctorate: Managing roles, relationships and contradictions. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(3), 335–339. doi:10.1080/13562511003740908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Westberg, J., & Jason, H. (1996). Fostering learning in small groups. A practica guide. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wisker, G., Robinson, G., Trafford, V., Creighton, E., & Warnes, M. (2003). Recognising and overcoming dissonance in postgraduate student research. Studies in Higher Education, 28(1), 91–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolhouse, J. (2002). Supervising dissertation projects: Expectations of supervisors and students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 137–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, T., & Cochrane, R. (2000). Factors influencing successful submission of PhD theses. Studies in Higher Education, 25(2), 181–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeatman, A. (1995). Making supervision relationships accountable: Graduate student lo gs. Australian Universities’ Review, 38(2), 9–11.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business and Social Sciences, Center for Teaching and Learning, Aarhus University, Fuglesangs Allé 4, 8210, Aarhus V, Denmark

    Gitte Wichmann-Hansen

  2. Faculty of Arts, Department of Education, Aarhus University, Tuborgvej 164, 2400, København NV, Denmark

    Rie Thomsen & Helle Merete Nordentoft

Authors
  1. Gitte Wichmann-Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rie Thomsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Helle Merete Nordentoft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gitte Wichmann-Hansen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wichmann-Hansen, G., Thomsen, R. & Nordentoft, H.M. Challenges in Collective Academic Supervision: supervisors’ experiences from a Master Programme in Guidance and Counselling. High Educ 70, 19–33 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9821-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9821-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation