2. Key research questions 4. Initial analysis of qualitative data School of Psychology Investigating the psychological “fit” and interplay between dissertation students and their supervisors Niamh Friel PhD student, School of Psychology, University of Glasgow e-mail address: n.friel.1@research.gla.ac.uk Supervisors: Dr Lorna I. Morrow1, Dr Velda McCune2 1 School of Psychology, University of Glasgow, 2 Institute for Academic Development, University of Edinburgh 1. Introduction Identification of research focus Background Literature suggests that the supervisor plays a key role in the success of the project (for example: Pearson & Kayrooz, 2004 and Devos, 2007). Current studies concentrate on the qualities of a good supervisor and focus much of their attention in setting out guidance for what academics should do in order to become good supervisors (e.g. Hartnett, 1976; Lovitts, 2001). Independently research suggests that students characteristics and approaches to learning can have an impact on success (e.g. Busato et al 1999, 2000; Dweck, 2000; & Bandura, 1986). So, currently the qualities of a “good” supervisor and the qualities of a student are studied separately. No research bridges the gap between these aspects. However, it is proposed that it is a complex interaction between the characteristics, personalities and expectations (e.g. Jamieson and Gray, 2006) of the student and supervisor that can influence the quality of the supervisory relationship. Based on the literature, there seems to be several key dependent variables that are important to measure. It is clear the project/dissertation is of particular importance to student learning: In Undergraduate study the dissertation is a large part of the course, this is again true in taught Masters. MacKeogh (2006) suggests that through the course of their dissertation students acquire research skills and valuable transferable skills that will be key to their future successes. Skills to perform research are generally seen to be essential for successful operation in a global knowledge economy (Davis, Evans and Hickey, 2006). In this time of rapid change knowing is not enough, students must learn how to learn and the skills developed during a project/dissertation are vital for this. 2. Key research questions 3. Methodology “Fitting the approach to the research purposes is the critical issue” (Rossi and Freeman, 1993, p.437) Mixed Method (Qualitative and Quantitative) approach; Questionnaires Semi-structured interviews Advantages to both methods- particularly for investigation of student learning Quantitative: validity, objectivity, reliability and generalisation; Qualitative: allows the research to be credible and dependable (Hamberg et al, 1994) Triangulation of the data Key question: Does the psychological “fit” and interplay between student and supervisor have an important impact on the outcome for the student? In answering this question several sub-questions will be addressed: Are their characteristics of a “good” supervisor, or are there “good” supervisors for particular “types” of students? Are there some parts of the “matching” between student and supervisor that become less important if other aspects are present? How does Masters Supervision compare with undergraduate supervision in terms of the importance of the “fit” between student and supervisor? Do students at different levels expect different things from themselves and their supervisors? Research Questions Questionnaires Interview Schedules 4. Initial analysis of qualitative data Example student themes 5. Future work Importance of interpersonal aspects to supervision High expectations at beginning which become more realistic Future work will concentrate on combining the qualitative interviews with the quantitative questionnaires. Measures which have been taken in the quantitative questionnaires are outlined in table 1 below. “Yeah and s/he was smiling when they saw me and he was, I don’t know if he was happy to see me or not, but it was, I felt that, I felt that I wasn’t out of place going to his office every week. I felt welcome in there and that was good.” (Student 3) “Em… I think I expected more of them as I went through the process, because at first I didn’t know what the extent of the project would be, so I thought, oh probably 5 meetings should do it! Then, I realised that I need more support with, materials, with results, with design, with whatever.” (Student 2) Challenges in seeking help Measures Student time 1 Student time 2 Supervisor Minimarkers Personality √   Dweck Mindset (self) Dweck mindset (others) Self-efficacy in research Confidence Expectations Emotional Intelligence Autonomy Autonomy support received and given Perceived enjoyment and skill development in the process (outcome measure) Student and staff proxy measure of attainment  √ “I think there was times, especially when I had to choose the tasks I gave to my participants, I could have used more instructions I guess, or… there were times when they, would say something and I wouldn’t understand it and I would ask him to repeat that…and they would, and I still wouldn’t understand it, but I would just leave it because I was too, yeah, I was too. So, that’s an example of when I didn’t want to seem needy and seem… stupid [laughs].” (Student 1) Tacit notion of supervision Matching student in research interests Table 1 “So, this particular student came to me and said she had seen that I was interested in the area of […] and that she had an interest in a particular context, a particular context that she was interested in looking at, but she couldn’t think of a particular condition that this could be linked to and that’s when I said “well I might have just the condition that we can take your idea and fit it around”. So, we actually pieced together a bit like a jigsaw” (Supervisor J). 6. References Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice-Hall: New Jersey Busato, V.V., Prins, F.J., Elshout, J.J and Hamaker, C. (1999). The relation between learning styles, the Big Five personality traits and achievement motivation in higher education. Personality and Individual Differences 26, 129-140 Busato, V.V., Prins, F.J., Elshout, J.J and Hamaker, C. (2000). Intellectual ability, learning style, personality, achievement motivation and academic success of psychology students in higher education. Personality and Individual Differences 29, 1057 1068 Davis, H., Evans, T., & Hickey, C (2006). A knowledge-based economy landscape: Implications for tertiary education and research training in Australia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management Vol. 28, No. 3, November 2006, pp. 231–244 Devos, A. (2007). Mentoring and the new curriculum of academic work. Organisational Transformation and Social Change, 4(3), 225–236 Dweck, C.S (2000). Self- Theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. 1- 195 Hamberg, K., Johansson, E., Lindgern,G.,& Westman, G. (1994). Scientific rigour in qualitative research: Examples from a study of women’s health in family practice. Family Practice— Oxford University Press, 11(2), 176–181. Hartnett, R. T. (1976). Environment for Advanced Learning. In J. Katz & R. T. Hartnett (Eds.), Scholars in the Making: The Development of Graduate and Professional Students (pp. 49-84). Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Jamieson, S., and Gray, C. (2006) The Supervision of Undergraduate Research Students:Expectations of Student and Supervisor. Practice and Evidence of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Vol. 1, No. 1. Lovitts, B.E (2001). Leaving the Ivory Tower. The causes and the Consequences of departure from doctoral study. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. MacKeogh. K (2006)Supervising undergraduate research using online and peer supervision. In M.Huba (ed) 7th International Virtual University Conference, Bratislava 14-15 December 2006. Technical University Bratislava: Bratislava. pp19-24 Pearson, M., & Kayrooz, C. (2004). Enabling critical reflection on research supervisory practice. International Journal of Academic Development, 9(1), 125–141. Rossi, P.H. and Freeman, H.F. (1993). Evaluation: a Systematic Approach. 5th edn. London: Sage. Matching student in personal qualities/traits/individual strengths and weaknesses Recognised different rewards associated with different kinds of students “There would be two groups of rewarding students I think. The first one I think is the kind of student who actually needs very little help, and so, with the flexibility of the system, they can literally do whatever they want. As long as I feel I can supervise it, and I think that’s been really good…. the second group would be people who really aren’t high in confidence at all and really need quite a lot of support, but none the less do something better than they ever thought they could.” (Supervisor GG) “I really don’t think this is about traits of individual students, I think in a supervision relationship, this is even more true of a PhD, it’s about whether the supervisor and student together have all that’s needed for the project and if there is a deficit that neither one covers then it’s going to be in trouble! Em… so, an ideal supervisor would be one who can adapt themselves to the widest range of students I guess…..” (Supervisor Q) Example supervisor themes