Innovative Higher Education

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 127–147 | Cite as

Tracking New Directions in the Evaluation of Postgraduate Supervision

  • Tania Aspland
  • Helen Edwards
  • Jane O'Leary
  • Yoni Ryan
Article

Abstract

This article focuses on the evaluation of thesis supervision and highlights the vast range of problem areas presently documented as significant areas of concern for both graduate students and their supervisors. Additionally, the authors report on a study completed in 1995, which surveyed all Australian universities about current evaluative practices in postgraduate supervision. The conclusion of this study was that the conduct of such evaluations appears to be minimal and is primarily designed to obtain an indicator of the general “health” of a university's postgraduate supervision rather than to foster improved supervisory practices. As part of the same study, the authors conducted University faculty-based student and supervisor focus groups. Key issues emerging from these focus groups were: (1) the importance of relational aspects of supervision as the student communicates over the long term with one or more supervisors; (2) the importance of systematic feedback, monitoring, and evaluation to the supervisory process; and (3) the lack of strategies to facilitate this evaluative feedback process. On the basis of these findings, the authors designed evaluative strategies to facilitate regular ongoing feedback between students and supervisors.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aspland, T., & O'Donoghue, T. (1994). Quality in supervising overseas students? In O. Zuber-Skerritt & Y. Ryan (Eds.), Quality in postgraduate education (pp. 59-76). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  2. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of the disciplines. Milton Keynes: SRHE and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bernard, J.M., & Goodyear, R.K. (1992). Fundamentals of clinical supervision. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  4. Cesa, I.L., & Fraser, S.C. (1989). A method for encouraging the development of good mentor-protege relationships. Teaching of psychology, 16(3), 125-128.Google Scholar
  5. Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (1986). Review of efficiency and effectiveness in higher education. Report of the Committee of Enquiry. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.Google Scholar
  6. Cullen, D.J., Pearson, M., Saha, L.J., & Spear, R.H. (1994). Establishing effective Ph.D. supervision. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.Google Scholar
  7. Descy, D.E. (1991). Media educators and the development of an instrument to measure attitude towards advisors: The Descy attitude towards advisors scale. International Journal of Instructional Media, 18, 55-61.Google Scholar
  8. Department of Employment, Education and Training (1996). Diversity in Australian higher education institutions, 1994. DEET Report No. 26. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.Google Scholar
  9. Edwards H., Aspland, T., Litster, D., O'Leary, J., Ryan, Y., Southey, G., & Timms, P. (1996). The development of a process for student evaluation of postgraduate supervision (Final Report to Teaching & Learning Committee). Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.Google Scholar
  10. Edwards H., Aspland, T., O'Leary, J., Ryan, Y., Southey, G., & Timms, P. (1995). Tracking postgraduate supervison. Brisbane: Academic Staff Development Unit, Queensland University of Technology, Australia.Google Scholar
  11. Elphinstone, L. (1994). Manual for supervisors of postgraduate students. Melbourne: Educational Quality Assurance, Research and Development, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  12. Grant, B., & Graham, A. (1994). Guidelines for discussion: A tool for managing postgraduate supervision. In O. Zuber-Skerritt & Y. Ryan (Eds.), Quality in postgraduate education (pp. 165-174). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  13. Gruetzemacher, R.R., & Morris, R.J. (1992). A factor analytic study of graduate education students' ratings of research methods instruction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Education Research Association. Knoxville, TN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 353 326)Google Scholar
  14. Hill, W.C. (1981). Student perceptions of advanced studies: A research to date summary. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 232 505).Google Scholar
  15. Hockey, J. (1991). The Social Science PhD: A literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 16, 319-332.Google Scholar
  16. Ibrahim, E.Z., McEwan, E.M., & Pitblado, R. (1980). Doctoral supervision at Sydney University: Hindrance or help? Vestes, 23(1), 18-22.Google Scholar
  17. Moses, I. (1985). Supervising postgraduates. Kensington: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australia [HERDSA]. HERDSA Green Guide No 3Google Scholar
  18. Moses, I. (1984). Supervision of higher degree students: Problem areas and possible solutions. Higher Education Research and Development, 3, 153-165.Google Scholar
  19. Mullins, G., & Hejka, E. (1994). The evaluation of postgraduate supervision. Proceedings of the HERDSA Conference. Canberra: HERDSA.Google Scholar
  20. Parry, S., & Hayden, M. (1994). Supervising higher degrees research students. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.Google Scholar
  21. Phillips, E. (1994). Avoiding communication breakdowns. In O. Zuber-Skerritt & Y. Ryan (Eds.), Quality in postgraduate education (pp. 134-142). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  22. Phillips, E., & Pugh, D. (1994). How to get a Ph.D.: A handbook for students and supervisors (2nd ed). Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Powles, M. (1988). Know your Ph.D. students and how to help them. Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  24. Ryan, Y. (1994). Contracts and checklists: Practical propositions for postgraduate supervision. In O. Zuber-Skerritt & Y. Ryan (Eds.), Quality in postgraduate education (pp. 156-164). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  25. Ryan, Y., & Whittle, J. (1997). Adapted the original Moses schema at a Workshop in the Third Conference on Postgraduate Supervision, Gold Coast, Australia.Google Scholar
  26. Williams, B.A., Van Nort, J.J., & Titus, T.G. (1993). Factors that measure supervision effectiveness: A comparison of the SQ and SQ-R. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association. Atlanta, GA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 363 830)Google Scholar
  27. Zuber-Skerritt, O. (Ed.) (1992). Starting research—supervision and training. Brisbane: Tertiary Education Institute, University of Queensland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tania Aspland
    • 1
  • Helen Edwards
  • Jane O'Leary
    • 2
  • Yoni Ryan
  1. 1.School of Professional Studies within the Faculty of Education at Queensland University of Technology in AustraliaAustralia
  2. 2.Policy Officer of the Affirmative Action Agency in SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations