Research questions, objectives and theoretical framework

This paper presents a research that examines students’ (n=302) views on thesis supervision and related responsibilities between the supervisors and students in International Master’s Degree Programmes (IMDPs) of four Finnish universities. Aspects that students consider important during supervision are analysed with special focus on expertise, interaction and studying cultures.

In this research, supervision is understood as a complex social process (Hodza, 2007) and a vulnerable relationship (Delamont, Parry and Atkinson, 1998) which includes emotional and cognitive involvement. Previous research highlights the importance of effective supervision that leads to students’ success (Lessing and Schulze, 2002) and good communication as the main key factor of supervision (Waitie, 1994). Additionally, consistent rules, understanding the supervisor’s and student’s roles (Hodza, 2007), tactical meetings, supervisor’s expertise, feedback and finding solutions in issues that emerge, are equally important (Drennan and Clarke, 2009). The procedural aspect of supervision is equally important with the emotional aspect of supervision. A number of studies underline the importance of emotional involvement between the student and supervisor during supervisor which can increase students’ satisfaction and learning (Klein, Meijer, Brekelmans and Pilot, 2012)

Finland is one of the non-English speaking European countries that offer many programmes in English and thereby aim to gain a higher share in the international education market (OECD 2013). This trend reflects the increased cultural, economic and political globalization that has led to a new era of cross-border education and educational internationalization (Knight, 2011). Despite the high number of IMDPs, the research into these programmes in the Finnish context has so far been limited. Moreover, research on supervision in higher education focused more on doctoral level supervision (Dysthe, 2002) and less attention has been paid to research on master’s theses (Anderson, Day and McLaughin, 2008).  However, thesis writing constitutes the widest and most challenging share of studies which is why it has been experienced that it may often obstruct the completion of studies (Ylijoki, 2001).

The main research questions of this paper are:

(1) What are students’ views on the roles and responsibilities of the supervisor and student during thesis supervision?

(2) Which are the aspects that students consider important for master’s thesis supervision? 

Anderson, C., K. Day, & P. McLaughlin. (2008). Student perspectives on the dissertation process in a master’s degree concerned with professional practices. Studies in Continuing Education, 30(1), 33–49. Delamont, S., Parry, O. & Atkinson, P. (1998). Creating a delicate balance: the doctoral supervisor’s dilemmas, Teaching in Higher Education, 3(2), 157–172. 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. Dysthe, O. (2002). Professors as mediators of academic text cultures: an interview study with supervisors and master degree students in three disciplines in a Norwegian university, Written Communication, 19(4), 485– 536. Hodza, F. (2007). Managing the student-supervisor relationship for successful postgraduate supervision: A Sociological perspective. South African Journal of Higher Education, 21(8), 1155-1165. Kleijn, R.A.M. de, P. Meijer, M. Brekelmans, and A. Pilot. (2012). Curricular Goals and Personal Goals in Master's Thesis Projects: Dutch Student-Supervisor Dyads. International Journal of Higher Education, 2(1) 1-11. Knight, J. (2011). Higher Education Crossing Borders: A Framework and Overview of New Developments and Issues. In Cross-border Partnerships in Higher Education: Strategies and Issues, edited by R. Sakamoto and D. W. Chapman, 16 – 41. New York: Routledge. Lessing, A. C. & Schulze, S. (2002). Postgraduate supervision and academic support: students’ perceptions. South African Journal of Higher Education, 16(2), 139-149. McGinty, S. C., Koo, Y. L. & Saeidi, M. (2010). A cross‐country study on research students’ perceptions of the role of supervision and cultural knowledge in thesis development. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(5), 517-531. Nilsson, J. E., and A. K. Dodds. (2006). A pilot phase in the development of the International Student Supervision Scale. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development 34, 50–62. Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done?. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,33(3), 301-314. OECD (2013). Education at a Glance. OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD. Solberg, V. S., O’Brien, K., Villareal, P., Kennel, R., & Davis, B. (1993). Self-efficacy and Hispanic college students: Validation of the college self-efficacy instrument. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 15(1), 80-95. Vermunt, J. D. (1998). The regulation of constructive learning processes, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 149-171. Waite, D. (1994). Understanding supervision: An exploration of aspiring supervisors' definitions. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 10(1), 60-76. Ylijoki, O. (2001). Master’s thesis writing from a narrative approach. Studies in Higher Education, 26(1). 21–34.