Generalizations 12# Rønn, K. V., & Petersen, K. L. (2018)

At the current stage this project is about finding statistical generalizations in qualitative, danish educational research. That is to check my assumption that there is a tendency to make statistical generalizations on the basis of observations which cannot support such generalizations.

I will be posting excerpts from all those studies which to me seem problematic. This post is part of that and this is a link to the first post in the line.

Rønn, K. V., & Petersen, K. L. (2018)

Reference:

"Rønn, 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. 

https://doi.org/10.7146/dut.v13i25.104440

 

Abstract:

Collective supervision has become a common way to provide supervision at schools of higher education. This is also true for the supervision of master’s thesis students on the Master’s Programme, Security Risk Management at the University of Copenhagen. Based on experiences with collective supervision of master thesis students, this paper engages with the many understandings of feedback and learning in play in the teaching situation. In the scholarly literature, features such as multivoicedness, dialogue, process- and student-orientation are empha-sized when addressing collective supervision. Yet, our findings show a clash of expectations between a majority of the students (and supervisors) and these ide-als of collective supervision. Indeed, many students still believe feedback should be troubleshooting and product-oriented. In the final part of the paper we out-line a handful of ideas on how to improve future collective supervision to explicit-ly address the gap between expectations and conceptions of good feedback.

 

Testable hypothesis?:

 Nej: "The paper  sketches out  some  of  the  core  dynamics  of  feedback  when  supervising  master  thesis  students  in  groups,  including  the  fact  students  and  supervisors  often view  this  approach  to  supervision as  second-rate  supervision.  The  hope  is  that  by prompting those involved to put forward their points of view the ground will be laid for  discussions  that  could  impact  the  implementation  of collective  supervision  else-where in the future. " s180

 

Method/materials:

"In  the  spring  semester  of  2016,   25  students,  mainly  from  Western  Europe,  wrote  their  master’s  thesis  as  part  of the  international  Security  Risk  Management pro-gramme. These 25 students were divided into four groups with four different super-visors. The collective sessions included the master’s thesis supervisor and his/her 5-6 master’s  students.5 Thirteen students,  affiliated  with  different  groups,  responded  to a   questionnaire relating to their experiences of collective supervision. The question-naire was sent out in May 2016 and it included 19 questions -  13 questions were de-signed  with  a  multiple-choice  answer  and  6  questions  invited  elaborations  in  free  text.  The  answers  to  the  latter questions  were  subsequently  grouped  into  themes  (such  as  positive  and  negative  experiences  with  feedback  respectively  from  peers  and  the  supervisor  at the  collective  setting).  The  questionnaire  was  divided  into  the categories: ‘The feedback at the collective supervision’, ‘General conditions for learn-ing  at  the  collective  sessions’ and ‘The  learning  process  in  general’, and  it  entailed  questions  designed  to  identify  the  students’  notion  of  good  feedback;  their  experi-ences  with  the  feedback  provided  by  respectively  their  supervisor  and  their  peers;  and their general experience with collective supervision." s184-185

 

Statistical generalizations:

1) "An  effort  needs to be made in order to succeed, which is likewise in line with the scholarly lit-erature on collective supervision. This effort could for example include the following six elements:  1.Make the virtues and core scope of collective supervision (co-responsibility,active learners etc.) visible to all students (the collective set-up is not a part ofa cost cutting round, but is founded in studies on how students learn). Thisemphasis of the idea behind the collective set-up could be a means to meetthe potential lack of engagement of the students and the feeling that the pro-vision of peer feedback is a waste of time. etc. " s191

2) "In other words, a power structure is embedded in all kinds of dialogism, which is not to be misused but has to be used constructively to create a structured learning space. This involves, at a minimum:1.A   fair and clear structure for each session in order to ensure that each projectand their commonalities are addressed.2.Prepare not only for individual comments, but use the set-up to enhance theunderstanding of ‘shared knowledge’.3.Take the peer-feedback serious and take ownership by continuously trying toimprove the quality.4.Stick to the outline and the rules set up in the beginning of the course.5.Use the student evaluations constructively." s192

 

Comments:

I have flagged this study for generalizations of type 5 (see typology).

 

Both quotations are clear examples of a type 5 generalization. A list is presented of ethical rules or suggestions implying that the results of the study are statistically generalizable in that such rules can only apply to expected, future situations.