This paper reports on a case study investigating how student-centred learning, an underlying principle of the Bologna Process (EU, 2024, p. 14), can be identified in different master’s programmes at the University of Oslo (Norway) and Salahaddin University (Kurdish region of Iraq). Both universities formally adhere to the standards of the Bologna Process in their education systems. However, in practice, they differ in various aspects, including the length of time the implementation process has been adopted, funding and resources and university ranking—often with wide gaps between them (see, for example, Times Higher Education, 2024). The study focuses on student-centred learning within supervision-related activities, particularly in connection with the master’s thesis. This focus is examined at two levels within master’s programmes: first, the organisation (formalities and guidelines) and the educational design (academic and educational content), and second, the practice of master’s supervision. Based on these examinations, the paper investigates the following research question: How can student-centred learning in master’s supervision be identified in different higher education contexts?

In the past two decades, the Bologna Process, initially promoting ‘universal education in Europe’ (Haukland, 2017, p. 261), has gained attention beyond the continent. Various universities within the Kurdish region of Iraq have recently adopted the Bologna Process, beginning in 2019 (APPRAIS, 2023). In the early 2000s, Norwegian universities, along with many universities in varying countries throughout Europe, began implementing the same uniform standards associated with the Bologna Process as a result of new higher education reform policies (EHEA, 2024). Currently, 49 countries, including non-EU nations such as Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, have all pledged ‘to pursue and implement the objectives of the Bologna Process in their own systems of higher education’ (EHEA, 2024). With numerous countries spanning thousands of kilometres now adopting the same educational standards, it is worthwhile to examine such global policies in universities at the local level. This is especially true because research related to the Bologna Process often tends to concentrate on a macro level, emphasising structures and political issues (Dysthe & Webler, 2010, p. 23).

A guide provided to institutions planning to implement the Bologna Process within their higher education systems characterises student-centred learning as ‘innovative methods of teaching which aim to promote learning in communication with teachers and students and which takes students seriously as active participants in their own learning’ (EU, 2015, p. 76). To examine how student-centred learning can be identified in the two universities, Dysthe’s (2002) supervision models will be used as an analytical tool. Her models comprise three supervision types, each characterised by distinctive features: the teaching model (supervisor-in-focus), the partnership model (student-in-focus) and the apprenticeship model (project-in-focus). The model closest to the description of student-centred learning in this context is the partnership model, which is characterised by a symmetrical relationship between the supervisor and the student. In the partnership model, the master’s thesis is viewed as a joint project between the student and supervisor, involving a dialogical relation between the two parties, with the supervisor aiming to foster independent thinking. 

Dysthe (2002, p. 532) explained that the partnership model is based on a dialogical approach to learning (see Wittek, 2023). Within this framework, meaning is created through interactions between different individuals in a real-time context (Linell, 1998). When individuals in a setting share different thoughts and perspectives, their understanding is constructed and transformed (Dysthe et al., 2006, p. 302), facilitating learning opportunities. By using Dysthe’s supervision models, especially the partnership model, we can examine the type of supervision that is set up among different master’s programmes in relation to one of the Bologna Process’s underlying principles: student-centred learning.

The project employs a qualitative approach and utilises different methods to collect data, but at this stage, collection has only been conducted at the University of Oslo. However, the same methods will be applied at Salahaddin University, where we are currently in the process of collecting data. To begin, five master’s programmes from different faculties at the University of Oslo were selected. We chose international master’s programs to achieve some similar grounds between the subcases (the programmes all being in English, student groups with different educational experiences). To examine the organisation and the educational design in relation to master’s thesis supervision in these subcases, relevant documents on websites associated with the respective master’s programmes were collected and content analysis was conducted. The analytical tool used in this study consisted of specific themes and questions aimed at capturing information about master’s supervision in textual descriptions of the programmes and courses offered. Content analysis aids in gaining better insight into the organisation and educational design in relation to master’s supervision, revealing potential patterns or characteristics across faculties and countries (Tjora, 2017). It provides the opportunity to systematically review the websites of individual master’s programmes (Grønmo, 2016). Second, to gain deeper insight into the educational design and perspectives of both the programme coordinator and course leaders, focus group interviews were conducted. These interviews involved the programme coordinator and course leaders within selected master’s programmes from the five mentioned above. We selected two programmes that explicitly express elements that can be directly connected to student-centred learning. This could be linked to the master’s thesis and, in terms of participation, expecting the students’ full effort and engagement. With an interview guide prepared beforehand, a series of questions were asked about various topics, such as different course activities related to the seminar and group supervision within the programme, as well as the reasoning behind these activities, experiences from their own role as a supervisor and metathinking about their role. The focus group interviews were conducted to obtain more detailed information about the educational design in terms of the underlying ideas behind student learning and master’s thesis supervision and in conjunction with their own experiences from supervising master’s students. This research method was chosen to collectively input a broader range of views on the particular focus of master’s supervision from different perspectives (Katz-Buonincontro, 2022, p. 48–49).

The preliminary findings revealed emerging tendencies. The written text describing master’s supervision on the five programmes’ webpages was often brief, with few explanations. However, based on the organised activities and descriptions of learning outcomes, conveying insights into the educational designs, signs of the ideas behind the partnership model could be discerned. Different course activities were organised in which students were expected to present sections of their thesis work, for example, in courses related to research methods. It was evident that there were clear expectations for peers to provide feedback, emphasising ‘expected student participation’. Regarding learning outcomes, course objectives requiring skills such as ‘critical thinking’ were often a recurring pattern, indicating expectations of certain skills for students to be actively engaged. The focus group interviews conducted at this stage revealed the presence of other supervision models besides the partnership model. Traces of the teaching model, also associated with a traditional approach to teaching, were evident in the data material. This was characterised by an asymmetrical relationship between the parties, where the goal was to transfer knowledge onto the student and the students were highly dependent on the supervisor (Dysthe, 2002). By reading through the transcripts and testimonies of the programme coordinators and course teachers, it was evident that many of the students were not considered ‘mature’ enough for supervision sessions resembling Dythe’s partnership model. The students’ knowledge background, coupled with the evolving dynamics between the parties, had an impact on the type of supervision that emerged during the supervision sessions. The different phases of the students’ master’s thesis work also had an impact on the type of supervision model that was observed. However, further data and analysis are needed to accurately determine how student-centred learning can be identified in the two universities. This will be included in the conference presentation.

APPRAIS (2023). Roadmap for the implementation of the Bologna Process in Kurdish universities. Read. 29 December 2023. https://www.appraisproject.eu/roadmap-for-the-implementation-of-the-bologna-process-in-kurdish-universities/ Dysthe, O. (2002). Professors as mediators of academic text cultures: An interview study with advisors and master’s degree students in three disciplines in a Norwegian university. Studies in Higher Education, 19(4), 493–544. 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(03), 299–318. Dysthe, O., & Webler, W. D. (2010). Pedagogical issues from Humboldt to Bologna: The case of Norway and Germany. Higher Education Policy, 23(2), 247–270. EHEA (2024). Full Members. Accessed 3 January 2024. https://ehea.info/page-full_members European Union (2015). ECTS Users’ Guide. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2766/87192 Grønmo, S. (2019). Samfunnsvitenskapelige metoder [Methods in social science] (2nd ed.). Fagbokforlaget. Haukland, L. (2017). The Bologna process: The democracy–bureaucracy dilemma. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 41(3), 261–272. Katz-Buonincontro, J. (2022). How to interview and conduct focus groups. American Psychological Association. Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives (Vol. 3). John Benjamins Publishing. Times Higher Education (2024). World University Rankings 2024. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2024/world-ranking Tjora, A. (2017). Kvalitative forskningsmetoder i praksis [Qualitative research methods in practice] (3rd ed.). Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk. Wittek, L. (2023) Feedback in the context of Peer Group Mentoring: A Theoretical Perspective. In T. de Lange & L. Wittek (Eds.), Faculty Peer Group Mentoring in Higher Education. Springer.