Supervision course for Supervisors and PhD students

Transkript

1 Evaluering af Supervision course for Supervisors and PhD students at KU/LIFE, 15 April and 24 June. Undervisere: Camilla Rump (kursusansvarlig), IND, og Sofie Kobayashi, LIFE Vedlagt: Underviserens kommentarer til evalueringen fremadrettet opsummering Sammenskrivning af skriftlig evaluering modtaget 9 besvarelser ud af 15 mulige Sammenskrivning af udsagn fra den mundtlige evaluering baseret på cirkulering af udsagn fra deltagerne Flyer beskrivelse af kollegavejledningsmodellen for deltagerne i mellemperioden.

2 Fremadrettet opsummering af evaluering af kursus for ph.d.-studerende og vejledere ved LIFE Camilla Rump og Sofie Kobayashi Opsummeringen af den skriftlige evaluering er vedlagt sammen med en sammenskrivning af de statements om kurset der kom til veje i den mundtlige evaluering (DELTA-metoden). Overordnet finder jeg resultatet af den kvantitative evaluering tilfredsstillende: Der ser ud til at være en velfungerende kursusmodel som har givet deltagerne et tilfredsstillende udbytte og som kan danne udgangspunkt for udviklingen af en model. Især ser det ud til at selve det at bruge Oslokollegavejledningsmodellen har været så tilpas en succes at man bør fortsætte med det. Jeg er helt sikker på at de ph.d.-studerendes udbytte af vejledningsøvelserne kunne have været øget ved at de havde fået øvelsen problemrettet vejledning i gruppe i stedet for førvejledningsøvelsen. Førvejledningsøvelsen udviklede sig alligevel i den retning for dem den første kursusgang og desuden har de ikke det samme behov for at få opøvet specifikke vejlederkompetencer snarere en opmærksomhed på samtalens struktur og hvad den betyder for samtalens kvalitet. Det betyder at man skal gentænke formatet og udvikle et format for hvordan de ph.d.-studerende skal arbejde i førvejledningen og eftervejledningen i mellemperioden. Det var dejligt at få bekræftet at underviseroplæggene ikke behøvede at fylde mere end de gør snarere tværtimod Der skal selvfølgelig strammes op på kildehenvisninger. Øvelsen i skriftlig formativ feedback bør videreudvikles eller måske bare droppes hvis vi går over til 1½ kursusdag. De var for mig overraskende glade for øvelsen i outcomes and capabilities, så den kan man altså godt holde fast i den er også en vigtigt udgangspunkt for den afsluttende øvelse i idealforløbet. Som jo også var en succes. Der var også stor energi og entusiasme omkring den på dagen. Supervisor/student-alignmentøvelsen skal nok tænkes mere skarpt sammen med resten eller resten skal tænkes sammen med den. 1. del var lige i skabet og var brugbar for dem, men 2. del af øvelsen bør måske udvides til at inkludere mere af hele kurset. Instruktionen til arbejdet i mellemperioden bør skærpes i form at et kit med en praktisk beskrivelse af hvad er skal foregå i de forskellige faser, og de skal have mere præcis information på forhånd om det forventede tidsforbrug for arbejdet mellem kursusgangene. Jeg har observeret deltagernes aktiviteter og finder at deres egen vurdering af deres udbytte stemmer meget godt: Der er helt sikkert nogle der har rykket sig rigtig meget og alle har helt sikkert lært noget de kan bruge til noget. Enkelte har været lidt famlende overfor kollegavejledningsformatet, og vil have svært ved at anvende metoden fremover men jeg tror det alligevel har ført til en frugtbar refleksion for dem som de kan bruge til noget. En form for skærpet opmærksomhed på selve vejledningssamtalen. Jeg finder det en anelse overraskende at halvdelen af deltagerne kun angiver at ville bruge kurset fremover to some degree i lyset af resten af evalueringen, hvor jeg ikke synes der bliver udpeget et ret stort rum for forbedring. Måske vil de bruge det mere end de tror. Et tiltag, der kunne give kurset større effekt, kunne være at køre det i de lokale forskningsmiljøer, så vejledere og ph.d.-

3 studerende i en afdeling får en fælles erfaring og et sprog, der kan ændre feedback-kulturen omkring vejledning i afdelingen. Man kan også overveje at arbejde mere med en teoretisk ramme for vejledning, fx baseret på teori om situationsbestemt ledelse, og værktøjer til refleksion, så vejlederne bliver bedre klædt på til at reflektere over egen praksis i vejledningen.

4 Evaluation of PhD Supervision Course 15/4-24/ How well did the following activities support your learning Very well Pretty well Well Acceptable Slightly poorly Poorly Group work I on 15 April : Outcomes and capabilities Group work II on 15 April : Written formative feedback Presentations : Supervision/Feedback and Peer supervision The peer supervision sessions? Supervisor/Student alignment model Presentation : Roles and situational supervision Activity concerning roles Group discussion : Ideal PhD and half-year assessments The course in general? to a very high degree to a high degree to some degree to a lesser degree not much very little Do you think the course dealt with relevant issues? To what extent will you use lessons learned at this course in your future supervision sessions? April :00-9:20 Presenting course and participants 9:20-9:40 Group discussion (groups: A, B, C, D) 10:10-10:30 Camilla Rump: PhD supervision and peer observations 10:30-12:00 Giving feedback on written material (groups: A, B, C, D) 13:00-13:30 Camilla Rump introducing exercise: pre-supervision session 13:30-15:30 Exercise: pre-supervision session (groups: A, B, C, D) 15:30-16:00 Groups (groups 1 and 2) making appointments + rounding up the day 24 June :00-9:10 Introduction 9:10-9:40 Interviews about experiences groups of 3 9:40-10:00 Presenting and debriefing 10:10-10:50 Supervisor/Student alignment model 10:50-11:20 Camilla: Roles and Situational approach to supervision 11:20-12:00 Activity concerning roles 13:00-13:45 Criteria for assessment 13:45-14:25 What is the ideal course of a PhD? Role of the half-year assessments? 14:25-15:00 Presentations from groups and debriefing 15:00-16:00 Supervisor/PhD pairs planning supervision development P.T.O.

5 What stands out as the most relevant and useful aspects of this course and why? Chance for students and supervisors to communicate with both peers and partnergroups simultaneously. Low threat Roles and situational supervision PhD students are different and supervisors are different! And that the role of the supervisor changes during the PhD! Awareness of the roles and responsibilities of the PhD students and supervisors Awareness of the different stages of supervision during the PhD study Awareness of the necessity of structure in the supervision meetings (agenda, present material to supervisor, date for next meeting etc.) The meeting and cooperation with peers we all have a certain experience and we are used to meet external problems, so the peers are supportive and critical. This is relevant to us all, especially if we are able to transfer some of the course spirit to closer related peer at the institute. The peer supervision session was really good. It was nice to get other comments from other peers and from the supervisor s peers on how our supervision sessions work. The course assisted in improving the communication skills of students and supervisors through the different exercises, especially the ones which were carried out after the first day. It also touched on our roles and responsibilities as students and supervisors. Setting focus on the background of the processes in supervision. Discussing expectations, both between students and supervisors and within each group. What do other supervisors demand of their students? Getting a common language and synchronize expectations with your student. This should be done for all student/supervisor pairs but doing it during the course with the input from others probably makes it better than just doing it yourself. Specially since the student also get the Not-only-me feeling to it. The lessons made some unconscious things clear and taught me some new things. - The opportunity to have time and methods to talk about the talk. - The peer supervision session was a very good experience. It was very helpful, to get some objective comments from the peers. - The whole course raised my awareness about the relationship between supervisor and student and the process of supervision. Are there important themes that were not or were too superficially covered? If you could point to themes or parts that could be given less emphasis or left out in stead, this would be helpful. Written feedback session working on docs submitted by others students, felt was not really effective. Use instead online/overall case studie(s) that all would write on simultaneously and discuss (would not too narrowly oriented technically) The importance of the structure of the supervision meetings could be strengthened.

6 How should we react to students with warning signs it could be done as an exercise - maybe the supervisors could act as the students and the students as the supervisors??? It is no problem to supervise good and competent students, but it is very difficult to supervise students with warning signs. Is seems as especially Camilla use a lot of theory, with-out a proper source information. The importance is difficult to judge, when the source is treated superficial. We don t know whether it is the source or the quotation. I think the course covered many interesting areas. I definitely learned most through the group work, but I still think that it is good to have some theory as well. As a supervisor I am missing something about how to deal with the situation if things go totally wrong, but I am not sure it should be included in this course. It more psychology than supervision/leadership. And I think the focus should be on the positive development of a PhD project and not on potential disasters. Suggested improvements: Talk about options for dealing with conflict before it gets out of hand (what resources available what should be available?) Some of the lectures were not very informative we are not familiar with the terms in this field and more examples might be valuable. Some instructions for the exercises could be better. For me the supervision sessions were unclear and therefore the session did not represent a general supervision situation. The activity with discussion of roles and situations might have included a characterisation of the follower before the suggestion of leadership styles. Sometimes it was a little difficult to understand the assignment/task. Either it is necessary to have more detailed written material or the group work should be described in more detail orally before starting. Especially on the first day, when the participants enter a new issue, a little more support is necessary, e.g. more precise instructions. The presentations especially on the first day might be improved/indeepened. It is fine with exercises, but then there should also be more time to talk about the outcomes. I can see that this is difficult estimate how it will go, when doing it the first time that way, but the experience should help next time. During the peer supervision sessions the students seem to need more clear structure to the pre-supervision session. It worked out well for the supervisors, maybe because they have tried supervision before and were able to discuss pitfalls and potential problems. Obviously people do not bring all papers from previous lessons, so maybe just to bring the papers will help. Altogether the course was a good experience. Especially the practical parts were interesting and helpful. Sometimes there was a lack of guidance/explanation about what to do. Some of the theoretical parts were a bit superficial. Maybe it would be nice to concentrate on some topics. Do an explanation and than try the methods.

7 The amount of time to be invested in the course was not clear form the beginning that was a bit frustrating in-between. Nice course! Go on with it! Other comments: Excellent initiative Good to have one s supervisor to attend at the same course It is has been a good experience, and Sofie and Camilla has done well, it seems as the conditions have been poor, and everything has been decided in the last minute. The insecurity resulted also in a confusing introduction to the exercises, often we had to find out ourselves. I m glad that I participated in the course, and will defiantly recommend it to others I recommend the course for other PhD students. I think it is an advantage for the student/supervisor pair to take the course together. There will, however, be a problem in the long run, when the supervisors have had the course before. I don t know how that problem should be solved. The teaching material should be sent electronically after each session.

8 Oral evaluation Supervision course 15 April 24 June 2008 Write 3 statements about the course Pass the papers round, and give a stroke to statements you agree with, and find important 11 strokes: This course enables us to easily talk about the talk Made me think about the process The course was educative Good to clarify both students and supervisors expectations (session 1) [something you don t talk about in everyday life. Long and deep down course. Observing others sometimes challenging] 10 strikes: Learned about expectations supervisor to student and vice versa Enjoyed discussions where students and advisors together, especially It helped to clarify the criteria for assessment of PhD students Inspiring self conscious evaluation through observation and realization The focus on clarifying expectations during the course was good That both PhD student and supervisor attend the same course is good / necessary! [maybe it only works the first time for the supervisors how will this develop? remains to e seen] 9 strokes: It brought closer the supervisor to the student and vice versa Aware of supervision roles from students and supervisors Aware about expectations from PhD students and supervisors Great to talk to peers I m not the only one The course helped to improve the relation between student and supervisor It will help to structure the supervision meeting in the future 8 strokes: Discussions and group work wasn t instructed clear and sources of literature not always given In this course you get the definition of expectations for free (it should be done anyway, if you didn t attend the course) I recommend this course for all PhD students and their supervisors Aware of different roles during the supervision process 7 strokes: Peer supervision idea is brilliant simple and easy to do. Striking that we can develop in the guidance of peers Workload between the two course days should be announced This course has given me and my supervision counterpart a common language in meta-communication and supervision style This course has opened my eyes to the supervision process and its importance Sometimes more precise information would be nice 6 strokes:

9 Seeing the same process / topics going on with other supervision pairs makes me feel normal 5 strokes: Learned a lot from group exercises! less from lectures 3 strokes: The course is beneficial, but I benefited more from the practicals / group work than from the lectures Should focus also to more supervisors (?) 2 strokes: Instead of having two days of the course that are so far apart, structure the course with the two days next to each other i.e. continuous Pressured me to think about how I supervise and articulate practical philosophy Think would be useful to discuss departmental frameworks in which can use external experts to help student-supervisor relationship to get on course if (potential) problems detected early; not just rely on the two being able to communicate on their own Informative Comprehensive material, spoken, written Good to visit Risø/Taastrup/LIFE-F different places (to see facilities) on turns! 1 stroke: The structure and expectations of / towards the PhD became more clear to me Realistic practically oriented Other comments: People missed out are those in trouble External consultants for conflicts Expectations should be done anyway not waste of valuable time Structure the course so that you can attend parts

10

11