Abstract
Postgraduate research candidature support, support of supervisory teams, and assistance with examination and assessment requirements are some of the crucial elements in a successful postgraduate student’s study experience. While there is a large body of research on Doctoral supervision, less is available on Master’s level supervision and support. Benchmarking studies that gauge the quality of higher education processes and practices, are gaining momentum as a research tool, and reflective mechanism for enhancing student experiences at higher education institutions. This paper reports on a small-scale study that used a holistic benchmarking framework at a research-intensive New Zealand university, in an effort to gauge the quality of the level of postgraduate Master’s research student support and supervision. Twenty-three academics and 17 students completed the survey, which assessed key performance indicators (KPIs): student support; postgraduate candidature development; student supervision; and assessment and examination support. Both students and academics were happy with orientation and induction, but students felt more information was needed regarding possible changes to research. Overall academics and students had confidence in the level of academic research guidance. Although academics felt assessment policies and procedures were explicit, students were not always in agreement. Moreover, students thought that evaluative feedback on their experience should be gathered more frequently. The findings suggest that, in broad terms, the university in question is tracking well and meeting most of the benchmarking principles and their associated KPIs. However, both academics and students highlighted areas where the University can improve practices to better support the experience of Master’s research students.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
All raw data is available on request via email to the corresponding author, subject to anonymity.
Notes
Author roles comprised: Tracey Millin was an Assistant Research Fellow; Rachel Spronken-Smith was the Dean of the Graduate Research School, and the Mark Millin was a Doctoral candidate.
Discourse is borrowed from the field of applied language studies and refers to the ways of believing, seeing, doing, writing and saying within a specific community. The community here refers to the academic research community. When talking about Discourse, we argue that you are apprenticed into a specific Discourse community.
References
Abiddin, N., & West, M. (2007a). Effective meeting in graduate research student supervision. Journal of Social Science, 3, 27–35. https://doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2007.27.35
Abiddin, N., & West, M. (2007b). Supervision practices for foreign graduate research students. American Journal of Applied Science, 4, 360–370. https://doi.org/10.3844/ajassp.2007.362.370
Aitken, G., Smith, K., Fawns, T., & Jones, D. (2020). Participatory alignment: A positive relationship between educators and students during online masters [sic] Dissertation Supervision. Teaching in Higher Education, pp. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1744129
Ali, P., Watson, R., & Dhingra, K. (2016). Postgraduate research students’ and their supervisors’ attitudes towards supervision. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 11, 227–241.
Anderson, C., Day, K., & McLaughlin, P. (2006). Mastering the disseration: Lecturers representations of the purpopses and processes of master’s level dissertation supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572017
Comley-White, N., & Potterton, J. (2018). The perceived barriers and facilitators in completing a Master’s Degree in physiotherapy. South African Journal of Physiotherapy, 74(1), 445. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajp.v74i1.445
Cornelius, S., & Nicol, S. (2016). Understanding the needs of masters dissertation supervisors: Supporting students in professional contexts. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 4(1), 2–12.
Davis, D. (2019). Students’ perceptions of supervisory qualities: What do students want? What do they believe they receive? International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 14, 431–464.
Davis, D. (2020). The ideal supervisor from the candidate’s perspective: What qualities do students actually want? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 44(9), 1220–1232. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2019.1669772
de Kleijn, R., Meijer, P., Pilot, A., & Brekelmans, M. (2014). The relationship between feedback perception and the supervisor–student relationship in thesis master’s projects. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(4), 336–349.
Dimitrova, R. (2016). Ingredients of good PhD supervision: Evidence from a student survey at Stockholm University. Utbildning & Larande, 10(1), 41–53.
Drennan, J., & Clarke, M. (2009). Coursework master’s programmes: The student’s experience of research and research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 34(5), 483–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802597150
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600680562
Filippou, K. (2019). Identifying thesis supervisors’ attitudes: Indications of responsiveness in international master’s degree programmes. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 57(3), 274–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1621764
Filippou, K., Kallo, J., & Mikkilä-Erdmann, M. (2021). Supervising master’s theses in international master’s degree programmes: Roles, responsibilities and models. Teaching in Higher Education, 26(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1636220
Frischer, J., & Larsson, K. (2000). Laissez-faire in Research Education - An inquiry into a Swedish Doctoral Program. Higher Education Policy, 13, 131–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0952-8733(99)00022-7
Graham, G. (2002). Universities: The Recovery and an idea. Thorverton: Imprint Academic.
Haggis, T. (2002). Exploring the “Black Box’’ of process: A comparison of the theoretical notions of the ‘adult learner’ with accounts of postgraduate learning experience.” Studies in Higher Education, 27(2), 207–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070220119986
Halse, C. (2011). Becoming a supervisor: The impact of Doctoral supervision on supervisor’s learning. Studies in Higher Education, 36(5), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.594593
Harwood, N., & Petrić, B. (2017). Experiencing master’s supervision: Perspectives of international students and their supervisors. Routledge.
Harwood, N., & Petrić, B. (2018). Adaptive master’s dissertation supervision: A longitudinal case study. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(1), 68–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1541881
Holdaway, E. (1997). Quality issues in postgraduate education. In R. Burgess (Ed.), Beyond the first degree (pp. 60–78). Open University Press.
Ibrahim, A. (2018). Directive, collaborative, or non-directive? Thesis supervision approaches in the United Arab Emirates. Issues in Educational Research, 28(3), 679–700.
Juusola, H., & Räihä, P. (2019). Quality conventions in the exported finnish master’s degree programme in teacher education in Indonesia. Higher Education, 79, 675–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00430-3
Karunaratne, T. (2018). Blended supervision for thesis projects in higher education. Electronic Journal of E- Learning, 16(2), 79–70.
Kiley, M. (2019). Doctoral supervisory quality from the perspective of senior academic managers. The Australian Universities’ Review, 61(1), 12–21.
Kordestani Moghaddam, A., Esmaillzadeh, A., & Azadbakht, L. (2019). postgraduate research mentorship program: An approach to improve the quality of postgraduate research supervision and mentorship in Iranian students. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 8(1), 109. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_37_19
Latona, K., & Browne, M. (2001). Factors associated with completion of research degrees. Higher Education Series, 37, 1615.
Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 267–281.
Luca, J. (2014) Good practice for research training in Australia: Steering us in the right direction towards research training quality. 11th Biennial Quality in Postgraduate Research Conference (QPR2014), 9th-14th April, Adelaide, South Australia.
Macfadyen, A., English, C., & Coates, M. (2020). Articulating and developing supervisory skills through collaborative action research. International Journal for Academic Development, 25(4), 32–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2020.1726760
Macfadyen, A., English, C., Kelleher, M., Coates, M., Cameron, C., & Gibson, V. (2019). ‘Am i doing it right?’ Conceptualising the practice of supervising master’s dissertation students. Higher Education Research and Development, 38(5), 985–1000. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1597024
Mackinnon, J. (2004). Academic supervision: Seeking metaphors and models for quality. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 28(4), 395–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877042000298876
Marnewick, A. L. (2020). A supervision approach to facilitate learning during the master’s research journey. Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1811223
Matin, M. A., & Khan, M. A. (2017). Common problems faced by postgraduate students during their thesis works in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Medical Education, 8, 22–27. https://doi.org/10.3329/bjme.v8i1.32245
McCallin, A., & Nayar, S. (2012). Postgraduate research supervision: A critical review of current practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(1), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.590979
Murareneza, C., Mtshali, N., & Bvumbwe, T. (2020). Challenges in postgraduate research supervision in nursing education: Integrative review. Nurse Education Today. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104376
Neupane-Bastola, M., & Hu, G. (2020). Supervisory feedback across disciplines: Does it meet students’ expectations? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(3), 407–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1780562
Petersen, E. (2007). Negotiating academicity: Postgraduate research supervision as category boundary work. Studies in Higher Education, 32, 475–487.
Phillips, E., & Pugh, D. (2000). How to get a PhD: A handbook for students and their supervisors. Open University Press.
Pyhalto, K., Stubb, J., & Lonka, K. (2009). Developing scholarly communities as learning environments for doctoral students. International Journal for Academic Development, 14(3), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/13601440903106551
Roach, A., Christensen, B. K., & Rieger, E. (2019). The essential ingredients of research supervision: A discrete-choice experiment. Journal of Education Psychology, 111(7), 1243–1260. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000322
Rönn, K. V., & Petersen, K. L. (2018). Collective supervision of master’s thesis students: Experiences, expectations and new departures from the security risk management programme. Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift, 13(25), 179–193.
Sá, M. J., Santos, A. I., & Serpa, S. (2021). The academic supervisor of higher education students’ final projects: A gatekeeper of quality? Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 10(1), 152–160.
Sambrook, S., Stewart, J., & Roberts, C. (2008). Doctoral supervision: A view from above, below and the middle! Journal of Further and Higher Education, 32, 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098770701781473
Spedding, T. (2020). Stories of supervision. Education Sciences, 10(93), 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10040093
Talebloo, B., & Baki, R. (2013). Challenges faced by international postgraduate students during their first year of studies. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 3, 138–145.
Thompson, D., Kirkman, S., Watson, R., & Stewart, S. (2005). Improving research supervision in nursing: Some guiding principles. Nurse Education Today, 25, 283–290.
Todd, M., Bannister, P., & Clegg, S. (2004). Independent inquiry and the undergraduate dissertation: Perceptions and experiences of final year social science students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(3), 335–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293042000188285
Tuckman, B., & Harper, B. (2012). Conducting educational research (6th ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.
Vereijken, M. W. C., van der Rijst, R. M., van Driel, J. H., & Dekker, F. W. (2018). Novice supervisor’s practices and dilemmatic space in supervision of student research projects. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(4), 522–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1414791
Wagener, B. (2018). The importance of affects, self-regulation and relationships in the writing of a master’s thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(2), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1379480
Wisker, G., & Kiley, M. (2014). Professional learning: Lessons from supervision from doctoral examining. International Journal for Academic Development, 19(2), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2012.727762
Wright, T. (2010). Postgraduate research students: People in context. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 31, 209–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/0306988031000102379
Youngman, M. (1994). Supervisors’ and students’ experiences of supervision. In R. Burgess (Ed.), Postgraduate education and training in the social sciences. London: Kingsley.
Zhang, Y., Yu, S., & Yuan, K. (2018). Understanding master’s students’ peer feedback practices from the academic discourse community perspective: A rethinking of postgraduate pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(2), 126–140.
Zheng, Y., Yu, S., Wang, B., & Zhang Y. (2020). Exploring student engagement with supervisor feedback on master’s thesis: Insights from a case study. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 57(2), 186-197
Funding
Not applicable.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Not applicable.
Ethics Approval
Ethics approval was granted by the institution’s ethics committee—application number D17/046.
Consent to Participate
All participants gave consent to participate in the study.
Consent for Publication
All participants gave consent for their anonymous data to be used for publication purposes.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Millin, T., Spronken-Smith, R. & Millin, M. Master’s Research Supervision and Academic Support: A Benchmarking of Best Practice at a New Zealand Research-Intensive University. NZ J Educ Stud 57, 231–252 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-021-00215-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-021-00215-2