Exploring graduate student learning in applied science and student-supervisor relationships: views of supervisors and their students

Abstract

This study presents the results of a questionnaire about the learning that occurs at graduate level and how the supervision of research contributes to this learning. Graduate students (PhD and Masters) and academic staff who supervise graduate students in applied science were surveyed. Graduate student responses exemplified how critical the relationship with their supervisor is in the success of their research term. The descriptive answers given by supervisors demonstrated their genuine interest in graduate school learning and showed they are cognizant of many issues pertaining to culture and learning environments in graduate study. The questionnaire sought to expand the trends and concepts identified by phenomenographic interviews with graduate students and supervisors. Other important insights such as opinions about coursework, learning environments and barriers are highlighted. Addressing such issues can only encourage an outcome that is beneficial to both students and supervisors through good research and a life-long skill of deep learning for the student.

Introduction

A graduate degree (Masters by thesis and PhD) in applied science at most Canadian and North American universities is typically comprised of several taught technical graduate courses and a research based thesis. In the British system, by contrast, PhD students concentrate on a thesis for the duration of their studies and may take just a few very short courses in skills development as supplements to their study. In each system students are assigned supervisors whose primary responsibility is to facilitate thesis work and ensure that the completed research meets academic standards. Some supervisors may take on a greater role than others in providing different levels of support to the graduate student, such as mentoring. In any case, the student-supervisor relationship is essential in contributing to the learning environment. As the recent UK Roberts Review (2002) states ‘The function of the supervisor in supporting and mentoring students is vital in developing them into capable researchers […] poor supervision […] can potentially suppress all of these desirable qualities’ (p129). However, no guidance is given on how to facilitate this effective supervision. Although much work has recently focused on the undergraduate curriculum (e.g. Morris, 2005 and Peat et al., 2005) the authors have found only a paucity of information concerning formal research on graduate student environments, specifically in applied science. Most available texts are not based on research but are study guides for students (e.g. Cryer’s The research student’s guide to success). In the paper entitled Helping postgraduate research students learn, Zuber-Skerritt (1987) describes how ‘higher educational research and development are relatively sparse’ at the post-graduate level. A major study of over 8000 PhD students in the US has just been completed (Nettles and Millett, 2006), however, its focus is the process variables and socio-demographic factors affecting PhD graduate education. If we expect graduate students to take a deep approach to learning and produce successful research they should be provided with the best possible learning environment. This paper reports on a pilot study in the development of research into factors affecting student learning through research at graduate level.

Supervision in itself is a complex process, as described by Campbell (2000) who writes that ‘The evaluative role of supervisor but collaborative role of mentor often conflicts in the supervisory process… students want to learn but want to appear competent and already knowing’. Supervisors have the difficult job of providing adequate attention to the student; however they must also teach the student how to think independently and supervise themselves to some extent. While little literature exists on learning environments in applied science at the graduate level, many studies in other disciplines have looked at supervisory roles in academia and job training (e.g. Zuber-Skerritt, 1987). Practising good supervision will not only benefit the student but will also reflect positively on the future reputation of the supervisor through the quality of work.

In this study graduate students and faculty members (academic staff) who supervise graduate students in applied science were probed using a questionnaire about the learning processes that take place in postgraduate research, with emphasis on supervisory relationships. The questions were based on phenomenographic research involving individual interviews with graduate students and staff. The questionnaire adopted an open-ended format, allowing respondents to frame their own answers. The findings from this study provide a valuable insight into the current status of graduate students and staff who supervise students. Possessing this type of data can highlight reasons behind positive research outcomes and similarly may help to explain shortcomings between the two groups. The authors have highlighted both the successes and challenges reported by the participants and it is hoped that supervisors, students and universities will use this information to further develop methods to optimise the graduate research environment.

More specifically this information can help:

• supervisors to become aware of concerns that their students may have and pay extra attention to these needs;

• students to become aware of issues in graduate school and make smart choices to ensure a satisfying research experience and

• universities to develop effective training strategies and working environments for students and supervisors.

Method

Ten interviews with graduate students and staff regarding their student learning were collected (Baillie and Steven, 2005) and analysed using phenomenographic techniques. Phenomenography is an approach that explores the qualitatively different ways in which people experience, perceive and understand various aspects of the world around them (Marton and Booth, 1997). Interviewers posed preliminary general questions while the interviewees expanded on their experiences and conceptions of different aspects involved in the graduate student learning experience. The questionnaire used for this study was based on the concepts and trends that emerged from this data and its goal was to gain more specific insights into these concepts and the key issues that current graduate students are concerned with.

The questionnaire consisted of two sections. The first section, entitled student-supervisor interaction and learning, related to the student-supervisor relationship, including expectations, communication issues etc. The second section of the survey, entitled graduate student learning, posed questions more specific to the learning process of the graduate student. Two surveys (one for students and one for supervisors) were derived from the base questionnaire. In some cases, the questions were slightly modified to suit the target group of staff or students. The questions posed to the graduate students and staff are shown (respectively) in Appendix A. The questionnaire had a semi-structured form - of 23 questions, 19 were of open answer form and four were of limited selection, however space was always provided for other responses and/or elaboration. Data from the questionnaires, including the student and supervisor responses, is shown and discussed in this paper. Similarities and differences between the two sets of responses are explored and preliminary conclusions are drawn.

Data collection

Questionnaires were distributed to graduate students from Queen’s University applied science faculty on an individual basis via email and hard copy. Of 100 distributed questionnaires, 44 were returned by the imposed deadline (one month from handout to collection). The details of the graduate student population sample are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1 Background of the respondents

	Year of study	TOTAL
Master of applied science	0–1	9
1–2	12
PhD of applied science	0–2	4
2+	19

Fifteen academic staff in applied science completed the survey: five professors (full), seven assistant professors (entry-level) and three associate professors (mid-level). Content analysis was used to analyse responses and identify qualitatively different categories of description. Additional analysis included recognising patterns and comparisons between student responses and supervisor responses. Due to the small sample size of professors used in this study their opinions are intended only as indicators and are not intended to represent mass opinion.

Results from graduate student questionnaire

The following sections summarise the responses of graduate students to the questionnaire. The results are divided into three general sections: student-supervisor interaction; learning environments and student research development. Representative quotations are occasionally identified for each category to provide more definition to the reader.

Facilitated learning: student-supervisor interactions

Graduate students were asked about the current and potential role of their supervisor with respect to their research, their relationship with their supervisor and any benefits or difficulties that may have arisen through this relationship. Outlined below are some main outcomes from the responses.

Most students viewed the current role of their supervisor as being one that provides direction and general guidance in the research (82%, n=44). Many of these students emphasised that the direction or guidance was very general and not specific at all. As one Masters student explained: ‘He provides general direction; an overall plan for the research, as well as interim goals. He is very hands-off, and does not concern himself with implementation at all. He provides good feedback on the finished project however.’ Other reported roles included ‘providing funding’ (30%), ‘answering questions’ (18%) and ‘providing academic background and knowledge’ (16%).

Good communication (37%, n=44), availability (33%), knowledgeable (23%) and mentorship (9%) were the four leading expectations that students had of their supervisors. Other expectations included ‘guarantee timeline’ and ‘ensure that research is appropriate/acceptable for the degree’. Although not asked, 19% of students indicated that their supervisor was not meeting their expectations.

86% (86%, n=44) of students admitted to having a concern or fear regarding their research and/or supervisor. Table 2 shows how the leading concern reported was ‘timing’, followed by ‘not meeting expectations of their supervisor’. A few reported other concerns such as ‘technical equipment is not satisfactory’ and ‘run out of funding’.

82% of students (82 %, n=44) indicated that they respect their supervisor, 16% were divided and 2% did not. Figure 1 illustrates how this respect stemmed equally from both academic and personal traits.

More than half of the students reported having a communication problem with their supervisor (55%, n=44). The problems were mostly explained by a combination of difficulty with knowledge transfer, absence of supervisor, unrealistically high expectations from the supervisor, personality differences and other minor problems. As one PhD student stated when asked to explain a communication problem, ‘Mostly different approaches. They don’t always take note of the large amount of time it takes to do small things.’

Similarly, 49% (n=44) of students reported having a different approach or understanding of a concept from their supervisor. The problem was reportedly resolved either by discussion with their supervisor to reach an agreement, or by application of the supervisor’s method. In some cases the students indicated that the problem was never resolved.

Table 2 Leading concerns reported by graduate students regarding research

Common issue	% of responses (n=38)
Research project larger than time allocated/not finishing on time	29
Cannot meet expectations of supervisor	24
Student receiving lack of guidance and purpose	21
Inadequate material for final thesis	21

Figure 1 Response when students were asked: “Do you respect your supervisor and why?” (n=44)

Most students (63%, n=44) indicated that the availability of their supervisor did not have a significant impact on their research. Others reported that when supervisors were away or busy with scheduling they found it added a significant time lag to their research. Most students reported meeting with their supervisor one to two times a week or month and meetings were scheduled mostly by a combination of the supervisor and student.

Learning environments

Students were surveyed about their learning environment, such as group work circumstances, courses and academic conferences.

Group work

Students were asked: ‘Do you find that working in a group helps or hinders research, explain?’ 42 out of 44 students offered an opinion about group work and its effect on their research; though data regarding whether the student had actually experienced group work during their own research was not collected. A small majority of students (55%, n=42) indicated that group work helped with their research. Reported positive outcomes from group work included ‘increases idea generation and motivation to complete the work’, ‘mistakes get corrected and problems are solved’ and ‘more work is completed in a shorter period of time’. Some students (26%) agreed that group work is positive for many of the reasons mentioned above, however it can act to hinder research if group members are not competent and are not productive. 19% of students reported that group work acts only to hinder progress for reasons including ‘time is wasted in cocoordinating schedules’, ‘lack of concentration in presence of others’ and ‘must conform to others’ work habits’.

Academic conferences

When asked about academic conferences, 57% (n=44) of students were of the opinion that they were valuable to their research. This was due mainly to receiving helpful suggestions, idea sharing and being motivated by fellow researchers. Other students indicated that it made them feel part of the bigger picture and thus gave meaning to their work: ‘Very valuable. Sharing my research and learning more about my topic and the research of others on the same topic’ (PhD student).

A smaller group indicated that they found that conferences were not particularly valuable to their work (27%). Reasons for this were that the conferences were too commercial, time consuming, not specific enough and did not meet general expectations: ‘I find them a little overdone. A lot of them lately have been too broad and too commercial’ (PhD student). The remaining 27% of students had not attended an academic conference.

Graduate courses

Figure 2 shows how students described the applicability of applied science graduate courses to their research. Most students reported courses being moderately related (37%, n=44), and others said that courses were very applicable (21%). Some students (14%) found coursework to be unrelated and typically explained this through statements such as: ‘Relevant courses would be helpful.

Figure 2 Response when asked: “Did you find the graduate courses that you have taken useful/applicable to your research?” (n=44)

Table 3 Reasons reported by students for choosing their current thesis topic

	Interest	Previous experience and need to learn more	Assigned by supervisor	Combination of interest and availability of projects	More appealing for jobs	Other
Total	19	7	7	8	3	3
Masters	13	1	3	2	2	2
PhD	6	6	4	6	1	1

But the courses I took were not all helpful’ (PhD student). Other students (12%) explained that, while the courses weren’t related to their research, they were necessary for future employment knowledge: ‘There was no course that was directly related to my work, but the courses definitely helped me understand the various theoretical aspects in my work’ (Masters’ student). It was also noted that 62% (n=32) of graduate students indicated that courses were necessary; 19% said they were not; and 19% were divided.

Research development

Upon inquiring how students selected their thesis topic, most students reported that the selection was based on interest, previous experience with the topic and a need to learn more (Table 3). The majority of Masters’ students chose their topic based on interest, whereas PhD students chose their topics based on several factors illustrated in Table 3.

Figure 3 shows how 75% (n=44) of students indicated that they were adequately academically prepared at the commencement of their research (20% indicated that they were highly prepared and only 5% indicated not being satisfactorily prepared).

However, 89% (n=44) of students reported that they could have benefited from some form of preparation upon starting graduate research. Of these students, the largest percentage (21%) indicated that previous research experience, such as exposure to a large research project in undergraduate studies, would have helped. Other suggestions included (in order of popularity):

• guidance from supervisor regarding project and courses;

• suggestion of key concepts, more knowledge and course suggestions;

• exposure to more mathematical theory in undergraduate studies;

• self discipline and motivation (i.e. how to self learn);

• prior work experience;

• sharing experiences with other graduate students;

• timeline layout.

Students were asked to comment on the origin of their research ideas, their development and progression (or stagnation). Most students reported that their research ideas originated from their supervisor (61%, n=33). Other ideas originated from the following:

Figure 3 Response when asked: “How academically prepared where you as a student when you started graduate research?” (n=44)

• previous research and journal articles (39%);

• trying to advance current ideas (33%);

• field observations, problems in industry and applications (21%);

• current problems with no solutions (12%);

• experimenting with data or lab materials (9%).

Testing through trial and error was the most common process students used to develop and refine their research ideas (28%, n=40). Other popular methods included references from research papers (20%) and discussion with supervisors and other experts (15%). A number of students (20%) reflected upon a sequential process involving some combination of brainstorming, testing and interpreting data and thinking about the problem. Methods reported only once by other students (17%) included model validation, random thoughts, thinking and expanding upon simple solutions.

Barriers to research

The majority of students reported that they had encountered a barrier to their research (82%, n=44). The most common barriers were lack of discussion with their supervisor (i.e. performing research without guidance), a lack of funding and poor equipment. To a lesser extent, other barriers included ‘lack of background on a topic and real data’ and ‘adjusting to mature student status.’ Samples of specific concerns were ‘The primary barrier[s] have been having to come up with plans, course for data analysis and interpretations virtually single handedly! I could know so much more if there had been discussion’ (Masters’ student) and ‘Mostly financial - always having to justify everything’ (PhD student).

Results from supervisors (of graduate students)

Responses to the questionnaire from 15 academic staff who supervise graduate students are reported. Data and conclusions are drawn from student responses (see Results from graduate student questionnaire) in order to show certain similarities and differences between the two sets of responses.

Facilitated learning: student-supervisor interactions

In response to the question ‘what role does your graduate student play in your research?’ most professors answered that graduate students are ‘responsible for conducting the detailed work of experimentation’, ‘modelling’, ‘literature review’ and ‘journal writing’. A typical response was: ‘they are the ‘Do-ers’: the hands, muscles and eyes that do the experimental work.’ Many professors viewed their role as research collaborators (a co-worker relationship): ‘They are critical collaborators. I count on them to help me shape the direction of the research, and to understand and disseminate the results.’ Other supervisors reported that their relationship with their graduate students has a likeness to an employer-employee relationship where the students are in charge of implementing and advancing ideas that have been pre-defined.

Professors were asked to relate what they expected from their students. The leading expectation was the possession and practice of good professional qualities such as intelligence, honesty, and being hard working. As one professor said, ‘they should be self-motivated, diligent, and intellectually inquisitive.’ Other prevailing expectations were: ‘ability to work independently’ or ‘willingness to try new things’ or ‘ability to become a specialist in their field of research’. Less repeated expectations included:

• finish on time;

• ability to help with design;

• perform original work;

• criticise their own work;

• good thinker;

• to have a positive experience in their studies;

• to publish papers;

• learn how to be a good teacher through teaching assistantships.

All supervisors expressed some concern or fear regarding their research and/or graduate student. The two most reported concerns were insufficient funding (6 out of 15), and having a poor student (4 out of 15). One professor stated, ‘my greatest fear is to be stuck with a very poor student, as a young researcher, I need to be very strategic with my small resources.’ Not finishing on time was the third common response by professors and the number one response by graduate students. Other noteworthy issues that were mentioned include:

• abandonment of project by student;

• failure to develop a good working relationship with student;

• safety of student;

• not being able to spend enough time with students due to other commitments that the supervisor may have;

• students involved with graduate school for the “wrong reason”;

• inability of student to write a thesis;

• bias against foreign students.

On matters of communication, almost half of the professors said they experienced a communication problem with their graduate student (55% of graduate students reported having a communication problem). The problems were expounded mostly as language barriers (cultural) and the student not following instructions/understanding properly. One professor noted that ‘Some students take time to understand Canadian culture so I need to ensure they understand that they must tell me when they do not understand me (in some cultures students do not admit they do not understand).’

Out of 15 professors, seven reported having a different approach or understanding of a concept from their student at one time (49% of graduate students reported this). Similarly to the students’ responses, the supervisors indicated that the problems were resolved by one on one discussion. In a few cases the problem was not resolved in a positive manner.

Less than half of the supervisors indicated that the availability of their graduate student does not have a significant impact on their research. A statement reflecting such an opinion was ‘I don’t need my students to be available all the time. If I haven’t seen them for a while and would like a meeting, then we set up a meeting using email. I also drop by their offices sometimes and have impromptu meetings, or else they drop by mine.’ Most supervisors reported meeting with their students on average of one to two times a week.

Learning environments

Group work

While graduate students were divided about whether group work was beneficial to their research, the majority of professors surveyed indicated that they found group work to help the student. Fewer professors indicated that group work could be both beneficial and ineffective, depending on circumstance: ‘Sometimes it helps, because the student can get help and advice from his peers and learn new skills. However, in the past, I have had students who were waiting on another student to produce some results that were required for the research to progress. It is not a good idea for the success of one student to rely very much on the ongoing work of another student.’

Academic conferences

Nearly all (12 out of 15) professors agreed that academic conferences were of value to students’ research. Example statements included: ‘It is very important to learn what others are doing, to present our work and have it assessed, and to know and be known.’ and ‘Conferences are valuable forums for presenting research and discussing with colleagues from the institutions. A conference presentation is a valuable experience for a graduate student.’ Other professors were more ambivalent regarding conferences, as one noted: ‘They are a mixed bag. Good to establish contacts and to get a snapshot of the research and research community, but are detractions from writing journal papers.’

Graduate courses

When queried about graduate courses, academic staff responses, much like those of the graduate students, were mixed. Out of 15 participants, six said that applied science (or engineering) courses were necessary, five were divided and two indicated they were not. In general, most professors agreed that courses were ‘moderately applicable’ and/or ‘applicable’ but their responses showed different levels of enthusiasm. For example, one professor said that graduate courses are ‘Somewhat useful for concepts. Some should be necessary’, while another responded that ‘Yes. I think that graduate courses are very necessary for research and for the future careers of the graduate students after they leave and go to work in industry.’ Two professors shared the same view (similar to some student responses) that courses could be good; however their experience was that very few relevant ones were actually offered. Many professors said that their teaching material was much related to their own research. Fewer professors indicated that their undergraduate courses were only moderately related to their research; mainly during presentations and class ‘aside’ discussions.

Graduate research and thesis development

Questions posed about knowledge building showed small differences in supervisor vs. student opinion. Table 4 displays the distribution of responses by professors and graduate students to the question ‘how knowledgeable would you describe your graduate student to be for their thesis topic when they first started their research?’ As expected, professors indicated that the knowledge of their students varied. They also stated that their students were either ‘not very familiar with’ or ‘somewhat experienced with’ the research topic. Graduate students felt they were mostly ‘somewhat experienced’ followed by ‘not very familiar’ and ‘knowledgeable’.

Upon inquiring how students selected their thesis topic, most professors reported that the topics were selected based on assignment by a supervisor (Table 6). Only two out of 15 professors stated that the topic was a combination of interest and availability of the project. Graduate students described more reasons for their own choice of topic (see Results from graduate student questionnaire).

Table 4 Response of supervisors and students when asked: ‘How knowledgeable would you describe your graduate student to be for their thesis topic when they first started their research?’

	Not very familiar	Somewhat experienced	Knowledgeable	Varies	Expert
Supervisor’s opinion of student (n=15)	5	3	1	5	1
Student’s opinion of student (n=43)	10	22	9		2

Table 5 Response of supervisor and students when asked: ‘How knowledgeable would you describe yourself to be for their thesis topic when they first started their research?’

	Not very familiar	Somewhat experienced	Knowledgeable	Varies	Expert
Supervisor’s opinion of themselves (n=15)	0	2	3	4	6
Student’s opinion of supervisor (n=46)	1	10	22		13

Table 6 Reasons reported by supervisors/students for choosing the student’s current thesis topic

	Interest	Previous experience and need to learn more	Assigned by supervisor	Combination of interest and availability of projects	More appealing for jobs	Other
Grad student	19	7	7	8	3	3
Supervisor			12	2		1

Nine out of 15 professors reported that they could have benefited from some form of preparation upon starting graduate research with a student. These professors suggested that discussion with senior colleagues or a mentoring programme during the early first years would have helped. A typical comment was that ‘A mentorship programme involving co-supervision may have been helpful in the first two years as we apply for funding, learn the system, discover available resources.’ A number of professors said that their own experience of being a PhD student and the observations of their own supervisor helped greatly in them becoming a supervisor themselves. Two professors indicated that there shouldn’t be much preparation, as one professor explained, ‘No need for more preparation, it might impede flexibility, and supervisor needs to be very flexible.’

Staff were asked to remark on the source of their research ideas, their development and progression. They explained the emergence of their research ideas in very different ways. In order to categorise these means of originating ideas the answers were divided into ‘what’, ‘who’ and ‘how’ categories (Figure 4). Common responses were industry needs and conferences, followed by literature, previous work and ideas of the supervisor him/herself.

Table 7 outlines the responses to the question asked of professors: ‘How do you help your students to develop and refine their research ideas?’ The most popular response was ‘by discussing with themselves (supervisor) or with other experts’. One professor noted that ‘[…] it depends on the graduate’s level: Masters are given direction, whereas PhDs are encouraged to develop ideas and refine them more on their own’. ‘Testing through trial and error’ was the most common process students said they used to develop and refine their research ideas.

Figure 4 The ‘what’, ‘who’ and ‘how’ — sources of professors’ research ideas, their development and progression

Table 7 How do you help your students to develop and refine their research ideas?

	Discuss witd supervisor / other experts	Provide direction/guidance, make plans	Have the student write out their work (e.g. paper format) and review/critic the work	Review other similar publication	Trial and error	Sequential process: brainstorm, testing, interpret data, model
Supervisor	12	3	3	2	1	1
Student	6	1	1	8	11	8

Barriers to research

14 out of 15 supervisors reported a barrier that has occurred in their research. The top three barriers reported by supervisors were lack of funding, problems with laboratories (such as poor lab facilities; difficulties in getting technical help; not allowing students to operate certain tools) and lack of time. Other barriers encountered were lack of funding for visa students and delays in getting results. The most common barriers reported by students were lack of discussion with their supervisor (performing research without guidance), lack of funding and poor equipment.

Discussion and conclusions

In this paper, postgraduate learning was explored using both qualitative and quantitative data from graduate students and academic staff who supervise graduate students in applied science. The myriad of opinions received from the questionnaire reinforces that postgraduate study is not a simple process and involves people of many views and backgrounds. However different the students may be, they often share common views on important subjects. Overall, supervisors’ responses indicated that they are genuinely interested in their relationship with their graduate students - they appear to have formed ideas and opinions on many aspects of their students’ learning and environment. The views expressed by both parties demonstrate that the structure of graduate study is very successful on some levels, however there could be significant improvement in some key areas.

The consensus in educational literature is that a positive relationship with one’s supervisor is the key to successful graduate programme completion (Peat, 2005). This statement was most strongly reflected in the responses received by most students. When asked about where their research ideas originate from, or how they develop, the most common response involved the participation of their supervisor. 82% of students reported that the role of their supervisor was to provide research direction and guidance. Only 16% reported that their supervisor gave suggested reading material and 2% said mentorship. When asked what role a graduate student plays in their research, most professors answered that graduate students are responsible for conducting the detailed work of experimentation, modelling, literature review, journal writing etc. Many professors said that their role is that of research collaborator (a co-worker relationship). While a large majority of students described their supervisor’s role as providing guidance and direction, not one student used the term ‘co-worker’ to describe their relationship.

The questionnaire revealed repeated concerns by students such as ‘not being able to meet their supervisor’s expectations’ which further demonstrates the importance which the student places on the relationship with their supervisor. 86% of students said that they had a concern or fear about their research and/or supervisor. It is necessary to address such fears, as they may hinder the student’s performance. The concern is that 19% voluntarily indicated that their supervisor was not meeting their expectation(s). Graduate students indicated that a good supervisor is defined not only by his/her academic record but equally by their personality. Further research may reveal what a good personality constitutes and how it is related to cultural norms and expectations.

Other key concerns were similar; however they were expressed differently by students and professors. For example, some professors stated that they feared having a student ‘join graduate school for the wrong reasons’ or ‘have a student abandon a project’. Similar remarks expressed by students were ‘research not valuable, cannot make good progress’ or ‘lack of enthusiasm, uninterested in research’. Supervisors expressed concerns about having a poor student and gave examples of previous problems with students not following directions. Opinions such as these from both sides stress the need for establishing an effective and communicative relationship. A lot of professors admitted that they learned how to supervise from how they were supervised during their PhD. Is this an acceptable amount of training? Responses from students regarding supervisors not meeting expectations, communication barriers and other dilemmas show that this may not be enough. Are professors recognising these needs? Student opinions regarding poor supervision etc. should not be taken lightly. In some cases the supervisor may be encouraging the student to work alone in order to develop independence and the ability to shape their own research, especially for PhD students. Students must also be aware of the increasing administrative, teaching and research demands on professors, especially new professors. This reinforces the need for supervisors to communicate their approach to their graduate students.

Slightly more than half of the queried professors reported that they could have benefited from some form of preparation for supervision, while a few indicated no need. Those who indicated that they could have benefited from preparation suggested a mentoring programme with senior colleagues in the early years of supervision, discussing funding, application and general administration. They did not comment on supervisory skills. It may be of use to provide supervisors with tools, from simple methods of information to more involved methods such as training, to help them facilitate learning at the graduate student level. Methods of leadership, such as identifying and working with different personality types, could help to bridge the gap seen here between students and their supervisors.

Furthermore, a number of professors put forward communication problems with their students caused by cultural or language barriers. One professor in particular noted that when a student doesn’t understand the language they will not admit to misunderstanding directions, thus continuing with improper procedures. Toporek et al. (2004) studied multicultural issues in the supervisee-supervisor relationship in graduate programmes and found that supervisory training may facilitate multicultural supervision by assisting supervisors in diagnosing the health of the supervisory relationship, as well as the supervisee’s sophistication when determining how to best proceed with discussions of multicultural issues.

Views on the learning environments of supervisors and students were quite similar regarding coursework and conferences but differed on group work. Generally both professors and students found that academic conferences were useful for research and overall a good experience. Graduate student views on group work, courses and conferences were also very insightful. Even though group work has been shown to be incredibly valuable, only a small majority of students (55%) indicated that group work helped with their research. While graduate students were divided on whether group work was beneficial to their research, the majority of professors surveyed indicated that they found group work to help the student. In Hasrati (2005) a professor noted that ‘it’s very difficult to see why they [the students] insist on sitting and working by themselves. And they almost have to be poked and prodded to actually work as a team…’ Hasrati noted that, while the supervisors often saw cooperation as a strong element in the success of research, not all students practised this, resulting in some students actually distancing themselves. When asked to name ‘most used skills’ in engineering, many working engineers and their employers identify the ability to work as a team (group) and to communicate with others as an essential skill and, in some cases, as being more important than technical knowledge (e.g. Scott and Yates, 2002; Deans, 1999). As graduate students may tend to work alone it may at times be necessary to stress the importance of group work, even if they don’t see a short term benefit.

Although there was only a small correlation between graduate courses in applied science and their research, most students deemed them necessary, explaining that taking courses in graduate school ‘produces a better-rounded student.’ They also deemed them necessary for other reasons, such as employment. Meanwhile, most professors found that course content could be applied to research. Several professors and students expressed concerns that courses they had taken were of no relevance to their research. The majority of professors and students found that academic conferences were useful for research and are, overall, a good experience.

Perhaps the most interesting outcome of this study was that 89% of students reported that they could have benefited from some form of preparation upon starting graduate research. The students suggested a number of ideas of how this preparation could be fostered such as guidance from supervisors regarding project and coursework or through workshops. Narayanan (2003) emphasised how MSc students definitely need more fostering and encouragement initially (than PhD students) throughout their thesis as they are ‘fresh out of the undergraduate programme’ and may become overwhelmed by courses, supervisor expectations and (common) research disappointments.

In undergraduate study, the context in which learning takes place is a key factor in whether the student takes a deep or surface approach to learning (Ramsden, 1992; Alpay and Mendes-Tatsis, 2000). Briefly, the surface approach centres on following a procedure or simply memorisation of facts in order to complete the learning requirement. The deep approach involves the understanding of a concept and the ability to relate it to other situations through true understanding. This theory can be adapted to graduate study, as a deep approach is virtually mandatory in conducting successful research. Setting only end goals by the supervisor, as reported by many students, may teach the student to only search for the end result, thus encouraging a surface approach. Factors mentioned by the students that the researchers feel may encourage students to take a deep approach to learning are: good communication and understanding between the student and supervisor (so that the student is able to communicate their concerns or fears throughout their research simply by asking a few extra questions); regular availability and meetings; input from supervisor regarding key concepts, literature etc. and some level of preparation for dealing with the novel self-discipline and motivational methods necessary to the mores of graduate study. As research often builds on previous work, it is essential that the student has a thorough grasp of previous knowledge or has practised the deep approach to learning. Students specifically indicated that a research-based project during their undergraduate programme could have helped them learn planning skills etc. that would have helped them in their postgraduate study. Addressing the specific concerns of students, as found in this study, may prove to be a useful tool in the future facilitation of graduate level learning. This may include:

• development of workshops for new supervisors on graduate student learning and factors affecting supervision;

• providing information relating to potential concerns at the beginning of graduate research. This information could be delivered to supervisors via training and then relayed to the students. Similarly a session could be run for the students by the department, with the participation of the supervisors.

In conclusion, this study highlighted the needs and concerns of graduate students in applied science and the cardinal role that a supervisor plays in facilitating their learning and research development. Addressing such issues can only encourage an outcome that is beneficial to both students and supervisors through good research and the life-long skill of a deep learning approach for the student.

Appendix A1

Questionnaire distributed to graduate students entitled “Applied science graduate student learning environments.”

• 1. What role does your supervisor play in your research?

• 2. What expectations do you have of your supervisor?

• 3. What are your greatest concerns/fears about your research and supervisor?

• 4. Have you ever had communication problems with your supervisor? Explain.

• 5. Have you ever had a really different idea or approach or understanding of a concept from your supervisor? What happened and was the issue resolved?

• 6. How available are you to meet with your supervisor? How available is your supervisor?

• 7. How knowledgeable would you describe yourself to be about your thesis topic (when you commenced your research)? Explain if necessary:

• 8. How knowledgeable would you describe your supervisor to be for your thesis topic? Explain if necessary

• 9. How does the availability of your supervisor affect your studies?

• 10. How often do you meet with your supervisor?

• 11. Who initiates the meetings?

• 12. Do you respect your supervisor? Why?

• 13. What led you to choose your PhD/Masters thesis topic?

• 14. How academically prepared were you as a student when you started graduate research?

• 15. What might have helped you to prepare (if anything)?

• 16. Do you find that working in a group helps or hinders research? Explain.

• 17. How are problems solved in your research?

• 18. Do you find them valuable to your research? What do you feel is the role of academic conferences in your research?

• 19. How are your undergraduate studies related to your research?

• 20. Where do your research ideas originate?

• 21. What process do you use to develop and refine your research ideas that occur to you over the course of your research?

• 22.a. Did you find the graduate courses that you have taken useful/applicable to your research?

• 22.b. Do you think courses are necessary or not?

• 23. What barriers to your research have you encountered or has your supervisor encountered?

Appendix A2

Questionnaire distributed to supervisors of graduate students entitled “Applied science graduate student learning environments.”

1. What role does your graduate student play in your research?

2. What expectations do you have of your graduate student?

3. What are your greatest concerns/fears about your research and graduate students?

4. Have you ever had communication problems with your graduate students? Explain.

5. Have you ever had a really different idea or approach or understanding of a concept from your graduate students? What happened and was the issue resolved?

6. How available are you to meet with your graduate students?

7. How knowledgeable would you describe your graduate student to be for their thesis topic (when they commenced your research)? Explain if necessary.

8. How knowledgeable would you describe yourself to be about your student’s thesis topic? Explain if necessary.

9. How does the availability of your graduate student affect your research progress?

10. How often do you meet with your graduate students?

11. Who initiates the meetings?

12. Do you respect your graduate students? Why?

13. What has led your students to choose their PhD/Masters thesis topics in the past? Did you typically suggest them?

14. Did you feel academically prepared as a supervisor when starting a research degree with your graduate student?

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the faculty and graduate students in applied science at Queen’s University who participated in this study, also the ARC research fund at Queens.