A positive and constructive relationship between dissertation supervisors and their students is a key factor in a successful outcome for doctoral candidates (Gill & Bernard, 2008; Golde & Walker, 2006; Golde, 2000; Halse & Malfroy, 2010; Lee, 2008). As well, the quality of doctoral supervision has significant implications for doctoral program progression, attrition, and completion rates (Halse, 2011; Ives & Rowley 2005; Sadlak 2004). Over the last 15 years, considerable attention has been paid to positioning doctoral supervision as a critical factor in improving the quality of the doctoral experience in Europe, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada (Allen et al., 2002; European University Association 2008; Green & Usher 2003; Golde & Walker 2006; McCallin & Nayar, 2012; Neumann 2003; Pearson et al., 2008; Walker et al. 2008). During this period, there has also been increased emphasis on exploring different supervisory roles, styles, models, and frameworks (Brew & Peseta, 2009; Lee, 2008; McCallin & Nayar, 2012; Parker-Jenkins, 2018; Vilkinas, 2007). Despite this increased attention on the supervisory process, an underexplored dimension of the supervisory-student relationship is the importance of ongoing ‘self-learning’ by supervisors that can lead to further mutual and reciprocal learning opportunities (Halse, 2011).
Although most supervisor-supervisee relationships are developed based on a collegial and, sometimes, even a collaborative basis, supervision is a predominantly conceived as a one-way learning process focused on enhancing the doctoral candidate’s learning process. Supervision often serves as an extension of the teaching process –albiet an advanced one– where supervisors help doctoral candidates learn through the process of developing and completing their dissertation (Connell, 1985; McCallin & Nayar, 2012; Nulty et al., 2009; Parker, 2009). The supervisors’ main roles are to share their experiences and expertise with a student through the process of advising, mentoring, reviewing, critiquing, and enculturation (Määttä, 2012; Pearson & Kayrooz, 2004). Rightly so, the emphasis on supporting the learning of students takes priority over the supervisor’s own potential to learn and to reflect on their supervisory experiences in an ongoing way. Little attention has been given in the research literature, however, to both the processes and outcomes of supervisors’ own ongoing self-learning processes (Halse, 2011). Therefore, the purpose of the proposed session is to provide a forum and reflective space for participants to individually and collectively explore their own self-learning experiences during the supervisory process in the hopes of heightening the value and importance of this process.
Knowles (1975) defines self-learning as “a process by which individuals take the initiative, with or without the assistance of others, in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources for learning, and evaluating learning outcomes” (p. 18). Adapted to the doctoral supervision context, I define self-learning as the informal process of ongoing professional growth experienced by supervisors based on dialogical and mutually-beneficial relationships with dissertation candidates.
Self-learning can be enhanced through the process of reflective practice which can be defined as “learning through and from experience towards gaining new insights of self and practice” (Finlay, 2008, p. 1). This process involves examining one’s own assumptions about practice, becoming more self-aware of one’s own actions, and being able to critically evaluate these actions in order to adopt new strategies to improve future practice (Brew & Peseta, 2009; Brew & Peseta, 2004; Finlay, 2008). Various models of reflective practice have been proposed that all have a common focus on the practitioner reflecting on their concrete experiences, drawing out insights and implications from these experiences, and considering what actions and behaviours can be adapted that will lead to further success and professional growth (Brookfield, 1995; Gibbs, 1988; Johns, 2013; Kolb, 1984). In the context of doctoral supervision, applying a model or a process of reflective practice enables a supervisor to adjust their supervisory approach based on their own critical evaluation of past supervisory experiences to better support current and future students in the dissertation development process (Brew & Peseta, 2009; Brew & Peseta, 2004).
This participatory workshop is designed to help participants increase their awareness of the value of reflecting on their own ongoing professional growth as dissertation supervisors and to help participants surface, articulate, and explore key learning insights that have resulted from their supervisory experience. The workshop will feature a series of individual and collaborative exercises that are supported by the application of various online learning tools. Topics to be explored in the workshop include:
- Conceptualizations and assumptions about self-learning and reflective practice;
- Types and purposes of self-learning;
- Barriers and challenges to making self-learning more intentional and explicit;
- Relevant models and research that informs the process of self-learning; and
- Implications for self-learning specifically related to supervising applied, change-oriented research projects.
Allen, C. M. Smyth, E. M. & Wahlstrom, M. (2002). Responding to the field and to the academy: Ontario’s evolving PhD. Higher Education Research & Development, 21(2), 203- 214, DOI: 10.1080/07294360220144114
Brew, A., & Peseta, T. (2009). Supervision development and recognition in a reflexive space. In D. Boud & A. Lee (Eds.), Changing practices of doctoral education (pp. 126-139). Routledge.
Brew, A., & Peseta, T. (2004). Changing postgraduate supervision practice: a programme to encourage learning through reflection and feedback. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(1), 1–33.
Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. Jossey-Bass.
Connell, R. W. (1985). How to supervise a Ph.D. Vestes, 28(2), 38-42. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ333265.pdf
European University Association (2008). European University Association (2008). Universities outline future priorities for improving the quality of doctoral education in Europe. http://www.eua.be/fileadmin/user_upload/files/Press/CDEpostconfdef.pdf
Finlay, L. (2008). Reflecting on ‘Reflective practice’. Practice-based Professional Learning Paper 52, The Open University.
Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Oxford Brookes University.
Gill, P. & Bernard, P. (2008). The student–supervisor relationship in the PhD/doctoral process. British Journal of Nursing, 17(10), 668–71. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2008.17.10.29484
Golde, C.M. (2000). Should I stay or should I go: Student descriptions of the doctoral attrition process. Review of Higher Education, 23(2), 199–277. DOI: 10.1353/rhe.2000.0004
Golde, C.M., & G.E. Walker, eds. (2006 ). Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing the stewards of the discipline – Carnegie essays on the doctorate. Jossey- Bass.
Green, P. & Usher, R. (2003). Fast supervision: Changing supervisory practice in changing times . Studies in Continuing Education, 25(2), 37–50. DOI: 10.1080/01580370309281
Halse, C. (2011). ‘Becoming a supervisor’: The impact of doctoral supervision on supervisors’ learning, Studies in Higher Education, 36(5), 557-570, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2011.594593
Halse, C. & Malfroy, J. (2010). Re-theorizing doctoral supervision as professional work. Studies in Higher Education, 35(1), 79-92, DOI: 10.1080/03075070902906798
Ives, G. & Rowley, G. (2005). Supervisor selection or allocation and continuity of supervision: Ph.D. students’ progress and outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, 30(5), 535-555, DOI: 10.1080/03075070500249161
Johns, C. (2013). Becoming a reflective practitioner. Wiley-Blackwell.
Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning. New York: Association Press
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.
Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision, Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 267-281, DOI: 10.1080/03075070802049202
Määttä, K. (2012). The pedagogy of supervising doctoral theses. In: Määttä K. (ed.). Obsessed with the Doctoral Theses. SensePublishers. https://doi-org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.1007/978-94-6091-678-6_26
McCallin, A. & Nayar, S. (2012). Postgraduate research supervision: A critical review of current practice, Teaching in Higher Education, 17(1), 63-74, DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2011.590979
Neumann, R. (2003). The doctoral education experience. Canberra: Higher Education Division, Department of Education, Science and Training, Commonwealth of Australia. http://www.dest.gov.au/highered/ei ppubs/ei p03_12/03_1 2.pdf
Nulty , D. , Kiley, M., and Meyers, N. (2009). Promoting and recognising excellence in the supervision of research students: An evidence-based framework. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(6), 1 – 15 . DOI: 10.1080/02602930802474193
Parker, R. (2009). A learning community approach to doctoral education in social sciences.
Teaching in Higher Education, 14(1), 43–54. DOI: 10.1080/13562510802602533
Parker-Jenkins, M. (2018). Mind the gap: Developing the roles, expectations and boundaries in the doctoral supervisor–supervisee relationship, Studies in Higher Education, 43(1), 57-71, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2016.1153622
Pearson, M., Evans, T. and Macauley, P. (2008). Growth and diversity in doctoral education: Assessing the Australian experience. Higher Education, 55(3), 357–72. DOI: 10.1007/s10734- 007-9059-3
Pearson, M. and Kayrooz, C. (2004). Enabling critical reflection on research supervisory practice. International Journal for Academic Development, 9(1), 99–116. DOI: 10.1080/1360144042000296107
Sadlak, J. (2004). Studies on higher education: Doctoral studies and qualifications in Europe and the United States: Status and prospects. Bucharest: UNESCO-CEPES.
Vilkinas, T. (2007). An exploratory study of the supervision of PhD/research students’ theses. Innovative Higher Education, 32(5), 297–311. https://doi-org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.1007/s10755-007-9057-5
Walker, G.E., Golde, C.M., Jones, L., Bueschel, A.C. & Hutchings, P. (2008). The formation of scholars: Rethinking doctoral education for the twenty‐first century. Jossey‐Bass.